section five ten day old solution of marriage or the first question is whether changes in the income of the hour are rolled into a determination of a substantial change in circumstances where the prior order was entered under the old before the adoption of a sculpture of the second question provided the first question is answered in the affirmative is whether dr salvatore demonstrated the existence of a substantial change in circumstances based upon an increase in the reflect their wife's income was factored into the amount of child support that was set or even potential income and that's different than the health insurance prevention which does state that the court may not consider factors that may not have factored into a god like calculation at the time the prior order was entered but the point is that there was a marital settlement agreement in this particular case correct yes and typically in a miracle settlement agreement the parties come to an accord and the court does not take a great deal of evidence on the basis that a court but whether the accord was  common when there is one is agreed to by both parties and that makes it determination that it does it it will put it within the judgement so in this case did the trial for take court to consider at the tiger hadn't ms kosik actually earned income furthermore there is a legal precedence under the prior heir that would have supported the consideration of changes in the income  the second point so let's talk about did the judge need it finding about a substantial change in her income in this case yes the court first said it wasn't relevant but it was relevant to i don't believe there are substantial judgment i'll have i know one tenth of may or may be reaching majority and college age i don't know if that's occurred yet but is there anything about the at the time this was heard the three children that they don't need support anymore that they have become you tube sensations and they have their own you know to the end they have followers and and that sponsors per year in excess of one two parents with three children in an intact household would be expected to spend other children but if they were in an intact household in this situation they would have a significant and the intact council could be itself with her household they would have me certainly a different life circumstance than they do now they would do other things  itself was designed by a legislature to address that very concern the schedule is a reference point in the implementation of in the i'm sure and when we can solve the schedule we  to provide ninety six thousand dollars worth of support for those children if they didn't meet at the time of the there was a guideline in place which required guidance and your findings if the court had determined that the target of that deviation had been appropriate it was my understanding this is just now the tour of greed and we're going back to the fact that there was an agreement that these children would fall and not needed about ninety six thousand dollars a year to live that and to date they don't need that anymore that  back to work even though he had fired her from his particular practice he wanted her to go back to work is registered nurse he wanted her to have the income why did he agree to ninety six thousand dollars a corporate into marital settlement agreement in addition to the child support would contemplate the health insurance costs who's carrying the health insurance who is paying what portion of the share yes why if these children today do need dr sam two hours income to survive or to live why did the why was the real deviation or why was ninety six thousand dollars a year ordered and agreed to by the parties but i think the looking that it the townhome nature of your daughter's question i don't know that we've ever submitted nor would i would i knowledge that the children don't need that to survive i believe that when during the course of the marriage you had a family unit whereby the dr sell tork made a significant amount of money and the children live deviation i don't believe was ever asked for nor was it entered by the court because there was no reason to deviate it was guideline child support and i would agree with mr sullivan and that's in that case which is the there was a calculation as to d a net income for purposes of child support under five hundred five that and that was based upon having three children thirty two percent of his net income and that is the amount that was entered no deviation was considered because number one and i was trying to counsel at that time i certainly would not have agreed to it on behalf of my client nor would i have had of advised her that that was something that she should do is take a deviation so from that standpoint honor i would not submit to the court that the children don't need that because they are trying to approximate or i should say the judgment tries to approximate the lifestyle that the children would have enjoyed had the marriage survive and while certainly it's not a perfect formula it's not a perfect idea that money combined with whatever money brenda is able to make in the lifestyle she's able to provide is something that the child support statute i think both then and now is something that is intended by the legislatures to try and it's nearly as possible approximate the lifestyle that the children would have enjoyed had the marriage survived so what is the substantial change silva tore the grounds to come in and ask for a modification was the passage of the new income shares statute which was went into effect on july first two twenty excuse me twenty seventeen and the legislature i think anticipated this type of proceeding by putting in the language the limiting language in five ten eight by saying you cannot come in and ask for a modification based only on the change in the statute so as i argue to the trial court the the substantial change we never got there and if we don't get through that threshold question of the substantial  and i think the first component your honor is is that while she did not have an income at the time on the date of judgment the testimony by the brand and the facts at the time of the judgment was that she had worked and had been employed during the course of the divorce because she just because she wasn't actually employed on the day of the judgment shouldn't that set up some sort of new standard that well if she makes any doubt any money moving forward post a critique that that should somehow trigger a review and i think that it's it puts the cat out of the bag a little bit by number one saying that is i think just is enough pointed out the parties with the time of the judgment that brenda who is probably going back to work at some point and infection did i think it was only about four or five months later that she returned to work that was well known to all of the both begins in council at the time of the judgment so when we look at her making more money there's no question that she makes a little bit more money and i'm using that term relatively but a little bit more money post decree than she did on the day of the divorce because on the day of the judgement she's made zero dollars now she's making i think historically has made three thousand thirty five hundred dollars a to a threshold amount as to what constitutes a substantial change in circumstances expect specific and it's to be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case by the trial court and i think that's why the trial court has invested with such discretion in income it didn't matter what mattered was was that mr selig or new words and dr salvatore knew that there was a new statute that would if apply lead to a significant reduction in the amount of child support that he had agreed and was ordered to pay at the time the judge or the fed is not enough because the legislature tells us it's not enough so they had there was also it as i recall in the record some interchange between the john and she and counsel for dr salvatore about how his income was being calculated and how it may not have been believable corretja if she had it is down when the situation records and his business bank records and what we found was that the financial affidavit he used and this is grounds or it's in support of his motion to modify was i believe i called it th to his personal pal it was sure on his both his tax returns in that his financial affidavit so how far into the proceedings did the amended petition get five it was never  it attorney sullivan made an oral motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the proofs over my objection the trial who were allowed an amendment such that brenda was then able to be call and she was able to testify was the initial motion to modify it and then simply the oral motion to amend the pleadings to the proofs at the time judgment and that led then to my argument on the directive and on the motion for the direct finding which was essentially what i have have argued in my brief to to visit court is that number one there was not been proven substantial change in circumstances and yourself that was it and i think it is counsel acknowledge that is not something that  is brought up before your honor that issue is essentially busy so if we start from the standpoint of dr salvatore as income at the time that he asked the court for a modification is the same or slightly more than it was at the time of judgment are simply left and then the issue of is the paid easy income standing alone sufficient to trigger a review under the income shares statute modification post july first twenty seventeen and i would submit that even if for purposes of argument and i'm certainly not saying that there was a substantial change of circumstances but even if we look at this and say file for purposes of argument there was a substantial circumstances are actually there is a change in circumstances such that brenda makes some money now and she didn't on the day of judgment it still leads us back to what is the grounds for bringing this before the trial a i think it time to avoid these situations i don't know that it was anticipated perhaps this is maybe a loophole that some are living in seven tempted to exploit but i think the intention was that we're not giving a child support paid or the option to come in and ask for a review simply because his child support obligations may go down because of the new statute and it is pointed out in in evidence brief and argued here today he says well there is there's a significant difference between what he would he was ordered to pay and agreed to pay versus what the income shares now would say that he's supposed to pay i was i wouldn't bet there yesterday she would open the door to litigation and everybody who did and the calculator is right on line you can go to each of us and you can plug the numbers in and it would be very easy for any could not provide it through his employer it could be provided through his employer and any any excess would be covered in proportion to the parties net income  believe it's in the subchapter s corporation at the time of the entry of judgment in negotiation of merrill settlement agreement there were as there are now significant concerns and questions as to what the health insurance market was going to look life for self employed persons and how that was going to impact potentially future college as we moved forward because the children at the time of the judgment were relatively young it wasn't that we were close to  the thinking was was that if there was going to be a change in the either the health insurance markets or the way that we can obtain or as a customer can obtain health insurance coverage if it was  taken from him as a self employed individual then there are dead be a provision or if brenda is working and her employer and her employer offers coverage it becomes simply a cost benefit analysis would she have i mean it was there in the anticipation that she would go to work there was absolutely in his patient she would return to work and the reason that was anticipated is because she had a history of work it wasn't that she was believed that she'd go back to nursing which would have made her more money right and she in fact went to work as an it was something else but it was a bit of a treat as nurse where she's actually able to work from home and when that provision was put in the medical insurance medical needs section of the town support provisions have a marital settlement agreement to get it all in there was just sort of canned language that really health insurance states that if for any reason to health insurance is not provided through either party's employer the husband with the secure the insurance and then it provided alternatively should the again as i mentioned before the house insurance costs for the children's portion of the premiums was not a factor as it is today her to contribute to the health insurance ok but if they can't agree to what the miracle settlement agreement that they previously agreed to now is provided then it would have to come back to court but right now we don't know that they would agree proportionate to the ngo but we can't get to it now it's your point that you started with we can't get to shared income can applications until we have a substantial change in circumstances correct