thank you and may please the court last week there was a letter sent out by the court indicating that we should be prepared to adjust the jurisdictional issue i guess it's my question is whether at the court pleasure should that be dealt with first or just part of the whole argument i think you'd be pretty or ok thank you i will but this is a case on administrative review and as part of the original decision of the trial court there was a a portion of the case on confessed error by the department they said that the roth ira clearly should not be counted as income the state's position has been taken that that because that's three men and required no  further decision by the trial court that that invoke or brought finale to the case then the decision that the decision should have been appealed at that point in time that would have been in may have made fourteen however as part of the motion to reconsider the point of had invoked section want to levon and of the administrative review act which provides very clearly that on the motion of either party the circuit court shall make findings of fact or state propositions of law most i think the court indicated in his docket that was brought his attention by the plaintiff's attorney myself saying oh look that remains to be disposed of here and brought his attention he then asked the parties to each present a proposed written order he adopted the state's written findings and that made the decision finally in january of this of last year the notice of appeal is clearly filed in that thirty day period now we agree that the wilkie case decided by the supreme court of the martin case which is an appellate court decision which give that will the case gloss both indicate that if it's only a matter of a ministerial duty without any discretion whatsoever then the matter could become final at that point in time or of in this case because of the pendency of the motion by the plaintiff or the findings under section one eleven there is no  way that the order could have been made final and to say that it would have would have been to deprive the plaintiff of the right that he had under the law under section one eleven and would have deprive this court of the reasoning of the trial court in making its decision and that applies whether or not the motion doesn't say it needs to be filed with the original case it appears to be a post trial motion but really it doesn't matter which way it is if you analyze the case all the trial court would have to do then to deprive that little bit of the right to appeal under the constitution of the state of illinois would be to make a decision on the merits and then wait thirty one days and then make those fine that were the case and there was a requirement to appeal that would just void the appellant's right to appeal so we've asked this court trying to hold as he did in denying the motion to dismiss this appeal that the matter was not final until the trial court did in fact make its findings and under section one level of ministry in that oh your position that it was not i don't do to the lack of findings and at the time that the motion to reconsider was called on court of the reasoning of the trial court which is clearly what's implied by section one eleven that we should have that available for review all of the cases that say they're in motion simply clarifying or it's fine referred to as the wilkie in the martin case which those clearly recognized that if there is still a matter of i think the words are proceedings which are required by i know of no other i don't recall any other cases than than the other two that they are citing which are administrative review cases also so what about the fourth does tricks case of hansel versus our of regulation which addresses do you think it's different when there is as we have here not just a failure to they out the facts on the basis of the finding but also a pending request do you see them saying it's one thing to say the judge didn't tell us the basis for his reasoning it's another thing the same as you're saying here well we asked the judge to tell us i agree that they're completely separate because of the provision that was invoked here is one that requires a motion of a party and that motion was filed and that will motion was what was pending and that was what was brought to the court's attention and you know initially the court acted sue is fine today i suppose you know it was reasonable to think that the trial court was working on rick you know acting on the other part of the post trial motions filed but after a number of months of labs we brought it to his attention then as when he called for proposed findings of both parties which were filed within the forty five day requirement and then he adopted the state so we submitted on the record that there was a delay if anality of any kind of decision for review until the january date when the trial court did adopt the state's and  this case is not a medicaid eligibility case you read much of the state's brief it sounds like it has to do with algae bills this is a post alledge eligibility case the question which arises is whether or not the community spouse which is defined by statute as the spouse who is not institutionalized can be called upon to contribute to the sport of an institutionalized spouse i e one receiving medicaid or medical assistance already in  nursing home the medicare catastrophic coverage coverage act of one nine hundred eighty eight was passed by the congress to deal with this precise kind of an issue it's better known as the anti him spousal impoverishment he has both a income and a resource requirement beyond which the community's phallus cannot go the in this instance and the state and the appellant both agree that the resource allowance was one hundred nine thousand five hundred sixty dollars at all times the income allowance was two thousand seven hundred thirty nine dollars per month at all times relevant in this case what happened in this case is mister mcgowan was called upon to submit his tax returns we did but what they did was they looked at the w two they are ten ninety nine rather it was issued to mrs mcgowan on her thirty five thousand dollar traditional ira the roth ira of course they confessed there too because it's not income the traditional ira was cashed in by her and that money then was given to mr mcgowan under the resource it's one hundred nine thousand five hundred sixty dollars the state then circled back and said wait a minute if it appears on that joint accurate and therefore we're going to tribute to you as income which by statu possibility of spouses following joint tax returns with a non response for relative only such income as this is attributable to the responsible relative will be considered as a matter of law we submit that they had to  this regard mrs mcgowan's income from the cashing in of her traditional ira and the statute i don't think could be much clearer we've set out in our brief the definitions that apply here community state and this is where it gets really complicated it makes no sense whatsoever as i point out i think page twenty two of their grief carolyn is not in i'm responsible relative of herself that this doesn't make any sense  himself not that i know of and we use we also point to the dictionary definitions but more importantly in our brief we set out with the statutory definitions are of a community spouse is the one who a spouse of an institutionalized spouse who continues to reside in the community whether she apartment or house or whatever the institutionalized spouse is the one receiving the care in a facility and a responsible relative as defined as one legally responsible for the financial support and maintenance of recipients carom is clearly a recipient mr mcgowan is the responsible party in the question therefore just becomes whether or not he falls under the support requirements which if his income exceeds two thousand seven hundred thirty nine dollars a month he can be called upon to contribute a portion of his to the care if you falls below that amount he could have been found from the institutionalized past of her to him to supplement his  carolyn that was reported on the joint tax return in that fashion and the statute plainly says it's not to be attributable to the responsible relative only the income only his income with it and i think what the state is confusing is the fact that because mar d cashed in and then contributed that sum of money to james so that he could have what the congress awarded him under the community spouse resource allowance one hundred one thousand five hundred sixty dollars think they confuse the two it was income to carolyn it was a resource to james when it was transferred to him both it under the not only the resource allowance but the income allowance and therefore the state should not have attributed any part of karen's income to james but we submit that the section which we rely upon couldn't be plainer is plainly says if there's a joint tax return with the non responsible relative that's carol deep doctor the raw ira amount which was eight thousand four hundred sixty nine dollars from the amount of thing but department had previously found attributable to  mcgowan which was sixty seven thousand and six eighty eight take that new figure fifty nine thousand two hundred nineteen dollars and look at a chart that said in the department's regulations to determine what the monthly support over now would be and that was five hundred twenty five dollars there was absolutely no discretion left to the department so that order was fin now the june sixteenth motion did reset the thirty day appeal clock but only that aspect of the motion that was a motion to reconsider their judgment operated to do that the other part of the motion the motion for findings of fact did not and that's because rule supreme court rule three zero three a wine refers to i believe it's motions directed against the judgment the motion to reconsider was the motion to provide one of the most it was one motion but i think the fact that  when cases have held that one when a party is just asking for clarification of the judgment and this is something similar to that this is in effect a motion to explain that part of the some facts requested explaining the judgment but that it would not on i'm sorry no i was just going to say but this motion was made pursuant to code that requires the proper work to make these findings to explain his judgment so doesn't that differ from the of the motion for clarification under the civil code or in civil cases not  agency cases like this i don't think so because it's still a situation where the motion that aspect of the motion at least it's not asking to amend or alter their judgment it's still even though even if there was a requirement that the trial court do so it was still not a motion directed against the judgment it would still i think be characterized just as  as something similar to the motion to clarify or plaintiff ever get of public review of the issue regarding this motion under one eleven say well what he would have needed to do if he really wanted to make sure that was decided ok the in this case his motion was filed on june sixteenth the motion to reconsider was denied the next day the circuit court still ha because that's correct your honor that's correct under these circumstances that's true  but again one what we're looking at two is whether the may twenty eighth or the yes the may twenty eighth order was final  unappealable the fact that these findings were subsequently requested and they were requested later that would not have an impact on whether the may order in his administrative review complaint or at some point before that order was entered the judge might have been able to say ok there is a motion for five and you have requested findings of fact my order will not be final until those findings of fact are out there but because the findings were request of late in the game the trial judge didn't have an opportunity to do that so i don't we understand where to get around this is to simply clued in your single motion their requests for clarification and requests directed towards us suggesting that understand that i haven't looked at that decision but it seems that what justice tigerman mate and the court may been saying in that case was you can't just file a motion to clarify and preserve jurisdiction but if you add a motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider would preserve jurisdiction in the circuit court but i believe still consistent with my argument the motion to reconsider would preserve it only until the motion to reconsider is denied and if in a case like that the trial judge had  or similar to that as a motion to reconsider did not i but did not deal with the motion to clarify aspect of it at all i think the result would be the same as what i'm asking  i would like to turn briefly to the merits actually we agree with what mr young said earlier and this is  case that involves support a support obligation which is distinct from  a person seeking some type of medicaid benefits qualifies for the there are different analyses but i think in some respects  sixty dollars is something that ups lies in that initial determination about whether somebody is eligible for medicaid and to render a person eligible the per the reset the end or the potential reset who is the person who receives the benefits ten transfer up to that amount of assets to the spouse and that's to procure eligibility but that does not answer the question of whether there would attend  husband and that helped her to become eligible for medicaid and as a result she received over twenty nine thousand dollars worth of care but her eventually a sixty three hundred dollar support allegation was imposed against her husband and the thirty five thousand dial dollar ira was included in that and we think that's a reasonable outcome it's consistent with the medicaid catastrophic coverage act scolds of preventing impoverish community spouses while at the same time not allowing persons to potentially evade paying that which they can be in other words this was a reasonable assessment  that amount was included was that it was included busy income and the joint tax return that james and carolyn mcgowan filed and the general rule under the regulation that mr young mentioned eighty nine illinois administrative code one hundred three point two zero the two is that all the considered in determining a support obligation and that unless the responsible relatives and everybody agrees james is responsible for car files a joint tax return with a non response from relatives and our position is it's somewhat non science a call to think of carillon as a non responsible relative especially who receives financial aid under the public aid code and carol i would certainly fall within that definition so and to the extent counting it puts him well above the two thousand seven hundred thirty nine dollars per month they fear that mr young mentioned it's called the weave the of whether you include with the complaint for administrative review or included in a post trial motion the request for the findings under section one eleven it's to put it you know if the you adopt the state's position it's to put in the hands of the trial judge and i know you all were and i assume you didn't like to be reversed but the whole point of it is that if you if you adopt that position then you put in the hands of the trial court the ability to rule on the merits wait thirty one days and initial findings  your back to be deprive the appellant of the review which is guaranteed by the only constitution with respect to the merits the state makes a couple obvious i think mistakes first they suggest that there was a transfer of the ira from carolyn to james that's not so if you look at page ninety eight of the common law record and i include it in our appendix to our brief the proposed findings that the court adopted on  appendix page twenty five the state the department and the trial court all acknowledged it was the proceeds of the traditional ira that were transferred to james under the community spouse resource allowance it was no longer income she recognized the income that brings a straggly to the the statute itself which the state i think would effectively make nonsense of by saying twice avick making carolyn a responsible relative for herself is to make section one hundred three twenty b too pure nonsense because it reads if the responsible relative that's james had file a joint tax return of the man responsible relative the only person in the world defies logic and in the context of this specific provision which says for purposes of the support obligation do not attribute to the community spouse any of the income of the institutionalized spouse that's affected and actually what it says the department did so it did so wrongfully and therefore the support obligation was wrongful because mr gallant's support was substantially lower than the community spouse or the minimum monthly maintenance needs