and if you look at it from the state side the only evidence presented by the executor at that hearing consisted of some pretty testimony by the executor herself where she just testified about her relationship to se  mother who mr o'brien was things of that nature and then more importantly evidence from an assistant for mr lee who testified that she in fact witness agreement act in section three says that the premarital priem of us been writing and signed by both parties and i think that's really the only issue that was actually living gated at the complained and there must be consideration well that issue wasn't addressed so i don't think mr bryan is foreclosed from claiming that a hearing on whether or not he is and how to dissipate the state as this is not a valid international agreement that there was no consideration but more importantly section seven of the uniform premarital agreement accepts fourth various other fronts and says that a printed marital dream is not forceful if that voluntarily or if the room was unconscionable a list number of factors that must be satisfied to show the agreement is not and costs will including that a party did not voluntarily expressly waive in writing any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided or that a party did not have or recently cannot had now to quit knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the party and i think these are specifically the probate act provides for the seizure under which a representative of the state can seek removal of an heir from the property and at the time that the time if you want to continue otherwise go backlit well stop the issue i think it's clear that mr o'brien has not given up his right to be able to present any other situation obviously as a court is aware from my brief i disagree i guess with mr dempsey on the issues of collateral stoppable as those being issues here i think a think judge in every case for that heard and the only cases the supreme court cases that the appellate cases indicate this it talk about this the fact that normally in this situation you're talking about litigation that that occurs consecutively or sequentially and so you have a case that was decided earlier and perhaps the appeal period hasn't run and then you have a decision that was made later well here these cases we you have the potential for inconsistent judgments based on the same or or sensually the same evidence here in our case both cases are before this court now so the possibility of that occurring well  concern the value she addresses is one about inconsistency and in decisions based on the same evidence and you don't have that problem here because of the fact that this these cases are here together before that's my position that i think because i can say because i think the concern is one of inconsistency that's a reason to have that the requirement of finality that would be the reason that we have that rule and so we don't have that issue here we don't have that problem here in this case because both come cases being here before the court saying i understand what the courts said yes i realize it now so i want to go back to th forceful yesterday entertainer do you can see that those issues were not resolved at that time while i think they were resolved in the sense dryer that issues like that are always resolved because the party has a right to present the issue if there is an issue they have a right to present it to the court the the question of the execution in validity of the any nuptial remit was before the trial court in the forcible entry detainer case that was litigation  detain or ways the issue of the of the of the prenuptial agreement as being the basis to allow forcible entry in detainer and the proof that we offered which was concerning the actual fusion of the agreement was obviously foundational pro been that whatever defenses mr o'brien had to the to the prenuptial agreement he would have presented them in the forcible bit and free detainer action to challenge the validity of the agreement because that was the basis for the request for forcible entry detaining him by saying that he or it presenting those defenses isn't the flipside of that that that issue was not decided those defenses that was not a those defendants were not adjudicated in that proceeding well i guess i wouldn't i wouldn't consider it that way your honor i mean as in any case is presented to a trial court each party has an opportunity to present their case if they choose not present something for whatever reason when the court makes its decision that that's still the decision i mean it think they don't get you don't get to come back the next day and say why gee i wish i had done this i think i present this now i didn't present that yesterday about do it now  the expectation would be that he would have presented whatever defenses he had that he thought the court would have considered as being defenses to the prenuptial agreement i think that would have been my expectation  concerning the validity of the agreement you found the agreement was probably actually it was value except that in evidence he based his decision in our forcible entry of the painter on the fact that the agreement was in existence and was valid and  changed the rights of the parties if you will as prenuptial agreements typically do and so to me that would that would by defining the issue that way i'm which is what the issue was  that would cover any defense you could present to the agreement after hearing he would have that opportunity i know you can't read a person's mind but why do you think the trial court made those comments to mr o'brien about you know this is the result today i'm never day you can present this and that  better about himself under the circumstances that's about all i can read into it your honor beyond that i can't say written ruling is much that there were issues that could have been presented his unique eight on page four of his written ruling that mr bryant would have a wider range of defenses that were not available in the fiction case that arden is wrong the defendant could have raised all those exemptions set forth in some fifty i'll see this ten slash seven which are the defenses enforceability a prenuptial agreement in fact that mr dempsey been on board at that time i'm sure he would have either raised all these issues or at least consolidate the case with the clearly it was not final judgment because it was still there was still the potential for peel when the court entered the order find final stop applied in the same order lifting the stay of