retroactive to a date in the michigan order restricted to february tenth two thousand and twelve and finally ask that she find that the trial court has used its discretion in ordering to me to be one hundred percent responsible for the children's medical expenses with regard to the first issue the issue of mark's restricted stock units really what we're asking the court to consider is when a stock considered income for child support purposes and as a preface to that i want to  again a recurrent benefit that is usually measured in money the value of goods and services received by an individual in a given period of time into something that enhanced as well in money at his knee income is money or other form of payment they vested after a certain period of time the company had to meet certain performance criteria is only did it within a specified period of time the stock would vest he also there is another limitation as till whether or not he had to maintain a certain  equivalent dollar amount of the restricted stock because he was an executive of the company in seoul for the kill even before mr mr slide was terminated one we only asking the court to find that one as time passed it be considered income for correct now is want to spend a few minutes going over the second issue is there no other questions on the issue of stock the only issue is is equally important is the certainly important financial issue for my be paid within thirty days of the final orders and the order itself is very clear it's not a final order and then the order for the states that all modifications to child support a retroactive to february tenth two thousand and twelve the think that mr sly filed his motion well come case the parties have a miracle settlement agreement in which they agreed not to include the husband stock in stock options as income for child support purposes the first district found that that agreement was against cop to contrary to public policy that they couldn't make such an agreement case in illinois that deals with restricted stock units as income for child support purposes the only thing where you get close to restricted stock is in re the marriage of crack in that case we're dealing with restricted stock not restricted stock unit restricted stock it's a fine line distinction restricted stock correctional certificates that are good it into the employee but they have to wait till they vaster a certain point with restricted stock you get dividends on those and if they're treated as stock you have going rights restricted stock units is which mr schlafly has was there the idea of stop that if you meet certain vesting requirements then you will get these tax certificates and then they will be yours i think there's three terms that are really important to for purposes that's considered issue based income so instead of saying my income would need to be a hundred thousand dollars because i deferred compensation you want to say that the incomes eighty thousand one child support is calculated on one hundred thousand this is bank happens in fact it's a out any it's similar to the reverse tax but as that it's involuntary so i think you can look at it as there is almost now the tax code defines what income is for child support purposes and that what leads you back to in the marriage a gradual switch to finding home as the plain ordinary meaning which is again to somebody and that stock is not a game to him he does not have the money in because of the cases that have dealt with us tax such as stock options like clanchy low and if we look at track all of those determine child support when the stock was actually cashed in so the stock is not father a hypothetical situation a bother who is sixty years old and his employer obgyn tributes to a four one k do we then say because he could tap into his four one k account during the time that he might have minor children that he's now required to do that even though he might not take the benefits until the children are past the age of eighteen i don't think i don't think that as a quote you can force someone to cash in assets for child support  it's more of a property you have an asset the different compensation that's of and moment of your us salary or income so this is actually and i don't know of up property instead of what would be what's considered income is that the employees may be given additional monetary income to have that car instead of well you know driving his own car that's monetary he's given money to do that here with the stock they're not hatched in yet so they don't and they have not become wealthy or in addition to his income income as roger says provide i think what you need to look at though is not the it's when the income is actually received a distribution of the stock so that income was available packed it was restricted stock case so the individual received dividends and that was considered income and in that case also the restricted stock was and in fact and i think it integrate them in enderson in ruby the court even said you know if this was a sale of stock for an employment based situation then it would be considered income and that that's what we have here just briefly to touch on a mish life argument with respect to the retroactivity of the support in the council didn't go into the timeline but it's streamline important to think about what the petition actually sat and for the support judgement so that's when she came to well county on march twenty eighth twenty thirteen and that's when she files her petition to enroll in michigan judgment as well as my promotion to modify child support or  at that time was march petition to terminate child support so i don't think it was it was an interim amount at that point but now we're talking about now team has now transferred that to increasing the child support from that in the amount and i think filed a motion here in illinois to increase child support she made no mention of the temporary order that she wanted to go back to twenty twelve he she could order it back she only said that i want to be retroactive to when i filed my it should be going forward not going backwards resolved by a final order that motionless tonight so at the time that the look the only thing that was pending in michigan was mark's edition to terminate child support it wasn't until ten his motion to increase child support was filed and will county then that that became the issue of whether his support should increase and that the order that was entered in michigan and temporary order says everything  work with respect to discrimination and the interim support it had nothing to do with any increase in child support it doesn't have to deal with any general modifications to child support was directly talking about the specific child support obligation at that time much chance for obligation was two thousand fifty seven dollars a month before the interim order was entered so i know i know you've said that a few different times but the judge in at that time now if let's say hypothetically well county court did terminate marched out her application then i think because you're dealing with that titian to terminate the child support that relates back to that titian but the only petition that was pending there was no petition that at the time that that threat that it was entered with respect to increasing child support so that was before the court was whether just child support stay the same or does it terminate that was the only thing that was before the