holding the supreme court didn't just put a label on these orders and call them three or four orders and actually went through it it elsa's over why disorders qualify as rules real for orders and what the court found was when you file a motion for declaratory judgment that asks for the construction of a pre marital green it you are raising a declaratory claim that is separate from the not a territory claim which is the dissolution action  plays under two different years in the original complaint i think there's a possibility that that could be construed as a real thrill for her and also the player prince had the choice of relating his complaint and the four found that he abandoned his original theory and that has a legal consequence to it there was again nothing left to be done with respect to the original theory he did was it was completely abandoned in his new theory so he couldn't go back and say  ruling that the premarital agreement was valid soley on the attorney fees shifting band as it relates to children's issues because i think that's truly a matter of law in this court can just reverse out right and so when we were i think coming out of the fully two thousand and eleven court day the party mostly focused on addressing the children's issues that were immediately coming up and there was an understanding that there was going to be a long process in arbitration as far as taking and so that's it wasn't until we came back to the arbitration hearing that we asked for the court to move to reconsider its prior rulings claims all have to be resolved we had to certify question to the supreme court and things of that nature you can't remember the name of the case now that it was a divorce and it was in a finding no contempt in a divorce case and the supreme court said no we have to resolve all of the claims would not this motion for declared judgment be considered in one of the claims in these near each our own process or in this not be appealable within thirty days that's a case management what's the difference here is it because you didn't open court press or because it was precipitated by a pleading rather than a request for a pretrial the difference is that in this case if you look at the record the motion that mr scales will file is brought pursuant to section seven a one that it states that very clearly in the very beginning of the motion we fully briefed and we responded to it mr schiavo had the opportunity to have a ask the tough stuff yes i'm general back to that monster question still i put seven on one n when it's resolved thirty days yes if i don't put seven on one end then i got a fifty fifty chance as to whether or not a trial court decide see that i don't know if the child who never saw that i do know that i believe mr scales and my office had an agreement to file all the arbitration documents in the trial force that is why it was filed i don't know if the trial court actually saw the document but it was made a just looked at when mr scales was arguing and i didn't see any mention of child related litigation or custody or anything along those lines that motion was denied and we're obviously far beyond the time mr scales who has to file a notice of appeal guardian that were before the court at that time because it wasn't it wasn't relevant at that time nobody had filed a motion for a few days before the trial for so there's no reason to make a ruling at that point in time just as there's no reason to make the ruling today once again  this even if there is a problem with this shifting green again in the pleadings or that motion for declaratory judgment is there any reference to that th section they feel shifting section no absolutely no indeed you respond to that no i don't believe i did because it was never brought up in that we i believe we have responded to it in the arbitration proceeding when it was a year and a half after the trial court's order and my only response to that would be assuming that it is right and this i believe just just such as soon referred to in the premarital agreement provides that it is some rouble so if there were a motion for fees filed i think the appropriate order response from from the court would be that there could be no ban as relates to child weighted litigation because that's what best us so i think that would be correct and i just don't think it's right purview at this time  finding so and yet one had the building to do so so i don't think i don't see this is problematic and causing the necessity delays in all cases because anyone can read the motion and get the filing and also just know we have not filed we did not file a response and that they found us attorney by sixty thousand twelve emotional reconsider was filed on october first two thousand and twelve and so no we had not responded at that time