the privilege of trying the case i didn't have the privilege of writing the briefs i didn't have the privilege of seeing the record and that said i'm ok with that and the circumstance and that is when you read law that i can't find every been addressed anywhere and that is the issue of dissipation that first of all the trial court considered substantial evidence considerable testimony a number of exhibits and render a opinion that was incorporated in a memorandum or in a word or in august of two thousand and eleven that or ask one that the court reconsider or consider and address the issue of dissipative answers second of all it requested a perfect cation of some issues relating to major medical and hospital furnishings that's not an issue the court took the matter under advisement and it's important member no more testimony taken there were no more exhibits offered the court simply took the matter up fifty fifty split no change at all i mean make it forty five i want to make it forty five or fifty got to make it sixty forty with no additional evidence it sounds to me like we're not using discretion of all it's like the old guard again we'll just see what happens and that's what we're going to go with something that i have been up to you sure but this court asked for supplemental prefer the issue of jurisdiction yes and to me reserve there was a reservation of me so none of the cases relied on mrs james are of that type we have some cited by my counsel that relate to well they rehabilitated and that's not really no different than a case where risk resurvey where there's a reservation but nobody asked for three or four a fine you know any right what they did not they did not so theoretically that we could decide this case and then no matter what because if this matter is taken up on appeal and resolved one way or another and if in six months or whatever there's an issue about the amount of the main streets do that's  there's a possibility that an issue will not is working and her absence i'm able to what happens then goes over and others that council or a year we have cases where maintenance has been set for review in two years w but the problem with that analysis yes where do you draw the line is six months too short and it's two years or five years too long and i don't know how we can how we can find a rule or what a lot of snow is there any cases i maintenance is required but he doesn't determine the amount i've not seen i don't think you're likely to this is this is an entirely different animal setting latency to say we're review pay more later i'm not sure it is it's a it's a discretionary your point was an excellent one moment to go back you have to draw a line somewhere and it seems to me the bright line this applies is inside the question presented how much before we can say we have a final judgment even though it might be subject to review the their future or in the  that he was generous with another lady and walk her presence from money out of his car is that a property funny thing during the marriage the fact that you're hundred ordered to pay child support or maintenance is that change but that's what we need to ask ourselves and that's what we need to answer because the statute doesn't say that separates income so that hard if you step ten thousand dollars a month in net income five thousand of his hers five thousand of it was his and and i would respectfully suggest whatever she did with the money he gave her what kind of looks like well you know i i would suggest that if that's the law this is an opportunity for the court sets up because we don't have any case law in the state of illinois that takes that position one way three it is very clear that a six month review of maintenance is not a final or looking at the three o four question there is not been the particularized finding needs to be made best important dates the memorandum opinion which initially allocated assets after the trial the matter was have a twenty three the order on the second portion of the bifurcated hearing was then entered on nine twenty one web this is johnson f post trial motional december sixteenth of eleven which resulted in an order regarding the post trial motions in march of twelve then we have a notice of appeal which was filed for sixteen twelve subsequent to that a decision before the entry of a judgment or order is treated as filed on the date and after the entry of the judge or he goes on to completely ignore the second component of that supreme court rule which says a party intending to challenge ultimate or disposing but not finally disposing of political action was then enter all three of those rules all three of those bases i believe that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal i'd like to focus then was that we really think this was the result is the same i believe justice we're going back to the trial court either way whether it's justice folks prediction that we need to go back finally today kate the issue of maintenance or whether we go back and retry the entire million dollars stay this case is headed back to trial either which way but what i the trial court would be loath to do and what i do not believe the record supports this court hearing is just wrapping this fifty five forty five percent discretionary allocation of the marital property and the marital that is well findings as to each of those particular factors so on the court has discretion to place more weight on others the court has discretion to place less weight whether we look at these factors in isolation or modest allocation bad sense on some fairly extreme facts whether or not we're having nerves is beside the point the allocation is fair  proportions pursuant to the directive of the stage and that is true it is amply supported in the record notwithstanding the arguments the court building consider this or fail to consider that it's there the court doesn't have to make a specific binding as to each of the factors but the court does make specific findings as to some of the factors yet somehow the brief of the a power suggests otherwise of course this last issue is somewhat puzzling to me which last issue the last issue concerning this patient it seems as though the power has shifted his argument throughout the course of the briefing and the argument process but i posed it that this case offers an archetype example of this page of marriage we have a marriage which is remain intact there's marital problem here we are arguing that that is not in fact his marital problem but that simply cannot be here so section five zero three very clearly and painstakingly indicates that m specifically which of those exceptions brings his earnings during the course of the marriage while there's an irretrievable breakdown outside of that by clear and convincing evidence why it's not done so he argues that the court somehow in graph an additional exception and those specifically enumerated exceptions and create a night which says retained earnings by we are in the parents of dissolution proceedings are not in recognize how long marriage how could it be that we recognize common law this lucian of marriage i think we also look at past statute in most particularly numerated exceptions we have got number five excuse me number three it says property acquired by a spouse after a judgment of legal separation now we know that this could be very similar in modern times when the grounds are not  difficult to prove we don't use a legal separation tool as much rather people are involved in dissolution litigation and live under temporary work it does happen every day in mine so to suggest that we now in during the term of the marriage are marital property there is no exception to the statute there is no case law which has been cited by my learned own it there's not even been an articulate argument made on that particular point indeed the argument has vastly through the course briefing and oral presentation here's day that merrill money was spent on extramarital purposes not related to the marriage for the benefit of one have me the jurisdiction of this court is one it's one thing because we cannot have final order in the case we do not have the specific finding of the specific language under three or four and we've got a reason mine and application of the twelve factors present to the record in this case would find that a fifty five percent forty five percent split is well within the discretionary funds of the trial  furthermore this idea that this a patient does not occur cannot occur when there's a temporary were in place in the core is inconsistent with the statute if it were found to be sash it would disrupt the entire