jumps in the morning why don't know you're ready to shoot you know maybe the court house this is an issue about a premarital or prenuptial agreement and the validity of that agreement signed into still several weeks before the parties marry there are several issues both technically and and then with regard to the village eighty of this agreement the circumstances under which it was signed with regard to the prenuptial occurred the prenuptial agreement that was attached to the complaint or to the territory judgment filed by rockwell castro global the petitioner in this case on april fifteenth two raquel castro global signs of verification and it alleges they asked the or states they have the prenuptial agreement signed by the parties is attached the true and exact cop as exhibit a to the complaint it's in portuguese there is a translation there not certified what is significant and this document is they had the document that was attached to the  motion to dismiss that because the court no court knows and the statutes require a prenuptial agreement has to be signed by both parties it wasn't this is so the court granted that motion to dismiss and then mitt filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment with a different document one that was now signed by both parties and attached to the amended complaint the the problem with that is of course that the be the actives of stating that the complaint or the sorry attaching to the complaint one that is unsigned that and saying that this is the actual cause this is a copy of that and then coming back one said agreement this is another sign prenuptial agreement would be invalid but there are additional arguments if the court does not agree with an argument that the court erred in allowing the time and accepting believe so and after reviewing the brief by mr dempsey i see that there is the notation of that a transcript was prepared and that there was a hearing was indented i i missed that and i apologize for that so there was a missing transcript there is missing transcript but i believe the record and the facts sufficiently show they aren't the prenuptial agreement is invalid and should not be should should not have been accepted attached to this amended complaint and frankly the one that was attached to the original complaint was never translated so it was only in portuguese and never translated the document which is translated in english and one of the witnesses for raquel testified that she had that it was true and accurate translation of the document he was provided by her does not disclose property what the property is of either  the prenuptial agreement act around is this the standards that are required when you have testimony or not it's clear that there was that there is nothing in these these documents either the judge in the original document filed with the complaint or the the amended or the other document filed with the amend complaint there is no prince or sorry there is no disclosure of assets it's only in portuguese the document that translates the prenuptial agreement was only translated into english for the the court trial so upon the petitioners decision to file for divorce and and again it says that a agreement on regime of universal community properties but it doesn't disclose again what's going to happen with that which is a requirement of the uniform pre nuptial act the the goble testified he thought going one or two weeks before the wedding for the parties that what he was signing was a marriage license that's what raquel told him you're going to swear going to go sign a marriage license and then went into the guy stands up and speaks in portuguese and reads this and he in both of them signed it that's what he understood there was no mutual assent because he didn't understand that he was signing a prenuptial agreement he thought he was signing a marriage licen presented by james cole and i and i don't believe that the court agreed that that was all or relied on that testimony of mr goble in making its finding that the prenuptial agreement that and that was there on my part i apologize this was a trial that was first started by judge parker and then concluded by judge rosen balm in these proceedings but the documents in and of themselves this provide evidence i believe that show that fail to meet the requirements the statutory requirements they do not disclose the property or the financial assets of the parties as required they there's no voluntary and so for those reasons these the court's decision or the court's ruling should be reversed there is also the affirmative defenses of fraud arresting portion and the unilateral mistake fact that being the the fact that raquel ended in brazil and when they went to sign these documents and got married she had she was a lawyer certified and was a lawyer for the who was licensed to practice in her state and in brazil james was was and is a us citizen and had just graduated from illinois state with a social sciences  degree she had learned some portuguese but wasn't fluent at all and so when raquel tells him oh we're going to do this we're going to just go sign this marriage license that's what his understanding is based on speaking with this with raquel who is a lawyer and who never told him oh go ahead and review this with any attorney and so for those reasons we would ask that the court reversed the trial court's ruling and determined th well i believe that the find the original finding before the wreck tells the motion to reconsider granted that jurisdiction and the the finding out for the modification by the trial court at the on the motion to reconsider there wasn't an a request to reconsider that ruling for three or four a finding it was a motion to reconsider the sort of the substance of  potentially a review of whether the prenuptial agreement right that's correct yes and the only significance of a prenuptial agreement is in here in society see the reasons for right and that's certainly our biggest concern otherwise it's a waste of time i would never suggest that coming is a waste of your time i understand your question and your issue and i am sorry i don't have case to do that it was our belief certainly filing the appeal that the that the modification was to the court's ruling and not to the and did not disturb the three o four a fine but i am sorry i have no case on that issue and i don't know mr dempsey should this court   i think one would assume that there it would make a difference on why someone would appeal probably but there's no factual finding that or there's no finding that says this would make a difference and i suppose will the court could return it  speak to that question but i don't specifically recall in the transcripts there's any discussion of the three or four a finding in that motion to reconsider  really the only asset of these parties divorce is that during the course of the the marriage while they were still married the response mother died there was a state that was opened up in peoria county and bestie has basically been  the the hearing on the motion to modify the court's judgment the court indicated based on sparks perience in the carl foundation litigation that it was cognizant that you're not supposed to go beyond the peer issues in the complaint territory judgment and the sole issue that was raised whether or not this was a valid agreement or not not how that impacted the this litigation only that's what the issue is going to be holding that leads to the question why  indication from the court at the hearing on the motion of modified judgment that those portions of those fines fact are being stricken but the significance is that the court granted the complaint declaratory judgment in what the petition was asking for that the court term in the orange prenuptial agreements about force reman and that's the only thing the courts decide at that stage of litigation it was repeatedly brought up during the course of the case that we're not getting into how that this prenuptial agreement affects these how this agreement affects the division of property there's actually no evidence whatsoever that on that the only thing that was discussed during the hearing was from the attorneys what our understanding of the statutory schemes recollection was it was earlier on in the proceedings because i think the court had understand that these perfectly have a lot of property won over fight over but the last day i think is concerning because that is the poll of the respondents testimony was on the last day does it matter it's about sitting all this time and effort hate to think about the money cost there would score you but i think from our perspective your honor we know that during the course of the marriage the response mother died  there was enough of a state that he went to in to everyone has to enter into a prenuptial agreement there's three different regimes you can enter into what is the significance of the universal community property regime versus operating into simply community property regime or the  yes i believe that that is correct but what the impact that there was no evidence presented on what this particular regime means and how that should be interpreted should be applied to the facts of this case and i believe it was the response of some objected to any attempt in this case to present evidence about what the universal community property regime meant in brazil and said well that's a subject that's requires expert testimony and my claim to be an attorney was license in brazil i believe could have presented that testimony but when we went in that direction to respond objected and it was i think discussed at that point that really the issue is not what that machine means how it's applied the facts of this yeah there's a paragraph in page six of the court's order were talks about the hague convention and again said that it was in writing it was they'd been signed by the parties so it didn't really seem to be an issue that was really more of a there was no effort steal or no certification on this or even this is a contract contracts can be admitted by the party to the contract laying the proper foundation for that we have both of the parties in this case ultimately admitted they signed that document issue credibility and i think most importantly the court found that mr goble says oh yeah i wouldn't sign it doc and i didn't understand so he made this big claim that he didn't understand torch to use you know a signing that he was led to believe this is a very license that he was could have done due diligence or something prevented him from trying to find out if if mrs global had some assets that she was hiding from him they were together brazil they talked about their finances so there simply was no basis to find this remote was touching on a few of the issues that the port raised in questions with me and with mr dempsey the transcripts of july three two thousand and seventeen on the motion to reconsider starting at our borders zero six and going through our four five course as i think the court noted there's nothing in the docket about that issue the the prenuptial agreement is as we have argued this was unconscionable and there wasn't anything in writing that was submitted that shows that there was a disclosure of property or waiving that what that property was or what those training obligations and that is one of the current requirements and one of the stench requirements as i noted mr goble had testified that he believed that he was going to sign a marriage license that put raquel told him and so there was no meeting of minds there couldn't be a meeting of the minds because he didn't understand and wasn't told he was now only was he not told he was signing a prenuptial agreement he was told that he would sign a marriage license something that would make sense to an american that you need to sign a marriage license  not something is this other document that was in portuguese and again not translated until the until the torch for students started to come for those reasons we would ask that the court