i have judge i want to get you to lunch on time but possible does this case mr ferris going to please the court i'm rick steiger and i'm here this morning representing doctor dr roger hanko in what is going to be a much simpler case deciding whether he needed to pay carry out of child support and maintenance of five hundred thirty thousand dollars or five hundred sixty thousand dollars so you won't have any of that kind of issues you have here there's a single issue on appeal and that is the interpretation of the marital settlement agreement your divorce mr farron camp represented by the petitioner shelley hanko roger was under our present it had an unusual procedural history they came to court in october of two thousand and ten and a basically agreed judgment was entered and agreed judgment attaching a separation agreement to merrill settlement agreement this medicine agreement a judgment were prepared by mr farron came it required payments of ten thousand dollars a month combined child support and maintenance for a period of sixty months young usual feature about that was about a month later in november mr farron can file a post trial motion to set aside the agreed judgment that he had draft in january of two thousand and eleven a handwritten order was entered again dave was there representing shelley roger was on represented and amended marital settlement was entered at that time and it provided in the order that that agreement shall supersede the prior settlement agreement america settlement agreement number it did and it there were some substantial changes under the amended agreement shelley w awarded half of roger's the j c pension plan which had not been mentioned in the first one of all she's awarded half of roger's roth ira which was not in the first one at all she's awarded one hundred percent of a bank account at a bank in jerseyvill she'd previously been awarded only half that judgment provided and the important wording is this that rogers shall pay total support to shelley of ten thousand dollars a month for fifty three months the language was the total sum not the additional sign and where we get hung up on this the court found that roger paid five hundred thirty thousand dollars and at the end of paying the five hundred thirty thousand dollars roger stopped then at that point  and filed a motion for tamped and we lead to the hearings that we had the trial court in our case found the amended merrill settlement agreement second one was a new agreement based upon new consideration of the parties the amended marital settlement agreement provided for payments of five hundred thirty thousand dollars by roger to shelley the court found that roger had paid shelley the five hundred thirty thousand dollars per the handwritten order the second settlement agreement superseded the prior settlement agreement and i mention merriam webster says supercede means to take the place of the amended marriage seventy three even required roger to pay and the word in is in there the total sum of ten thousand dollars a month for fifty three months and those words have to have me at the time the second one is senator roger has already paid thirty thousand dollars had mr farron camp of intended to be specific which we frequently do we would say he's going to pay ten thousand dollars a month for fifty three months starting february first the following month or it's going to say he's going to pay an additional fifty three payments of ten thousand dollars a month that language was not in there what was in there was roger agreed when he went in there he read it he signed he contempt motion they're alleging that the first thirty thousand dollars that was paid was not to be considered it was to start at that point and judge smith kind of got hung up on on when does the document take when is the order in effect and she was saying well the order in effect requiring him to pay the five hundred thirty thousand dollars started in january at the time of the second marital settlement agreement but she overlooked the language in that that said he has to pay the total amount of ten thousand times fifty three or five hundred thirty thousand dollars the the situation that you have is the second agreement is the only agreement there is but one there are not two mar settlement agreements there's one the marriage settlement agreement says raj is going to pay five hundred thirty thousand dollars roger pay five hundred thirty thousand dollars but then the court says well he ought to pay thirty thousand dollars more because the first thirty with prior to this agree i think that's wrong the agreements plain meaning is you pay a total amount of five thirty roger paid that the court found that and the additional order for that of the trial court that he paid out of the thirty is in error and i would encourage the court to review this to go over and find that to be the case and find that roger has fully fulfill his obligations  well i don't know that we're starting you it says it it says he's going to pay a total amount of five hundred thirty right but who's fault is that judge it's the drafters fault if it were if it was to be fifty three additional payments it would say he'll pay fifty three additional payments or he'll pay fifty three payments starting next month or he'll pay fifty three payments and we're just regarding the thirt already paid none of that was in there and roger didn't have an attorney there i don't know why doctors sometimes do that if roger had had an attorney there i guarantee you that language would be clarified but that burden is on mr farron camp because he was the draft and and it's very simple we do these every week to make it clear fifty three payments starting next month and had dave put that in there we would not be  because it wasn't supposed to be in there what happened is that and i think what's going on now this appeal is about dr hanko wanting to have cake and eat it too after this regional agreement was entered into it was discovered there were assets that had not been negotiated it down to fifty three months and that accounted for three months of ten thousand other payments which took to take the five hundred sixty thousand plus an additional forty thousand dollars difference in the three month negotiated and that was what was written there was no need to say anything else as a matter of fact it was pretty clear at the time was entered that it superseded superseded his plain language to it it substitutes for it takes the place of had there been a credit for those prior three payments it would have said he receives credit for the prior three payments but it didn't because it wasn't pretty much what the total total means from the moment that something different for family lawyers it means something to us as opposed to periodic maintenance preallocate maintenance is you know without and until reversed or appealed or something's done or him we put in total payments to put in a fixed amount paid over a period of time which is a hybrid between period payments and a lump sum maintenance it's designed to be set of told in payments that way otherwise there could be some argument about when it would terminate and whether it could be modifiable so that's put in every single time that i've drafted for forty years i've drafted these agreements i was put in the top if i do that kind of document and it's for that purpose what happened it was fifty months and then he just stopped paying i think what happened is he negotiated a deal that gave him credit for those three punch payments that was thirty thousand and then he got another credit for forty thousand as a result and if it could be considered that if you knew the character but the judge smith was there and heard testified and i think there you got to give some deference to her about his position his argument on what he was saying because it was quite clear that she was in perfect position to would we believe it's very clear that fifty three payments mean from the date of the entry of that order and that would be five hundred thirty thousand and he paid five hundred now if it said you're to get credit for the prior three months then it would say that also by way of example if there's an a temporary order let's says a temporary order and he's paid maintenance leading up to the final order that this  considering that for what he did he instead of paying six hundred thousand he was paying five hundred thirty thousand that was of the agreement so there's a difference in there of seventy thousand dollars and so i think he'd receive more than enough credit and it's very clear that you know i could be crazy avenues for a long time but seem pretty simple to me it seems that the language the words fifty three payments ten thousand a month  up to pay five hundred thirty thousand dollars he paid it like clockwork there's no question about that paid it just like clockwork and at the end of the five thirty he stopped paying it and it was at that point that they that raised this issue i agree with dave i've been doing this for thirty eight years and we write these things all the time and if it's going to be fifty three additional payments every time i write him fifty three monthly payments starting next month and continuing each month there after until fifty three payments are met that's not what this says this says he's going to pay five hundred thirty thousand dollars here total five hundred thirty thousand dollars how do you ignore thirty thousand dollars you can't and again the burden is on the draft or if that's what dave intended it to mean he should have crafted it that way he wrote was and it's on it's in your appendix that eleven the language he shall pay the total amount of ten thousand times fifty three so i thank you for your time