be in the record yet i did file after receiving this letter i filed a motion to supplement the record question two if not shown in the record on appeal to th then just the allows for jurisdiction to attach when the notice of appeal has been filed prior to the determination of the motion to reconsider it assumes than order of resolving the motion to and i would not have any dispute that this order that she attached is the order of the court's other cases i found even though the record was incomplete the court had there specifically the appendix  the court found didn't have jurisdiction because there was no thrill for finding and or there was still pending issues in the case but here again in this case in the judgment dissolution then on the killing front there was a thrill for f the this issue the briefs are small in this issue on both sides i believe that this issue is very narrow i don't believe there's a lot of issues of out to mention it i think is to consider it i know the trial court in the order in the motion reconsider and i think tried to explain how it didn't consider it but then the went on to say consider it for the limited purposes of determining what was active role as to the needs of the parties that are not of circumstances of the parties and so it's you're still considering i squab instructing a trial court to consider full security benefits as the public court did in this case either causes an actual difference in the acid distribution or it does not if it does not then the consideration is essentially without meaning if it does then the monetary value of this will show you benefits the spouse would have received is taken away from that spouse and given to the o spouse to compensate for the anticipated difference this works as an offset meant to equalize the property that was taken into consideration only to look at the relevant economic situations of the parties either it made a difference in the court's finding or it did if it did make a difference in the court parts one was on the ocean reconsider that was stricken i do believe that issues probably mute moot at this point because the court has ruled on that motion and then the second issue would have been this i don't know if that it is that panel wishes me to address the letter that was sent to both counsel i think the big issue he has asked to amend or supplement his appendix problem is there was no and all i could have concerns about the jurisdiction issues back in february i wrote count and i indicated to him i don't think there's jurisdiction we still have this pending rule i feel strange this pending motion to reconsider i then filed a motion to stay to find out what happened in the other case and i thought that jurisdictional component kind of resolved itself someone it wasn't until i actually sat down and realised there was no appendix there was nothing which other than my attaching that document jurisdiction so i think that's the fundamental problem and it's not just a minute or supplementing the appendix it's that there was no appendix at all attached to the group and i would leave that of course this court's discretion in terms of how it w to handle that from this point counsel and i disagree somewhat over what this appeal is about i do believe it's a fairly simple appeal because i believe very strong strictly that this is an issue of a trial  by property and that is exactly what we give the trial for a great deal of discretion to do we tell them this is your job you're there you're seeing all of the witness you're seeing their demeanor you're seeing how they conduct themselves you're listening to this evidence and this evidence was really quite frankly kind of overwhelming us to my client being active in the home she was active in terms of doing various things and so the court then made a division of property now counselor said oh this is all about mueller and i'll admit i'm the attorney that said hey let's see what mueller what you are saying because quite frankly i thought it would be instructive i thought it could be helpful but the supreme court has ruled on you learn does not resolve this case it could have been helpful had it gone the other way sure i've been a been to him here very happy about it however in this particular case let's look at what judge sat and that is i think the most fundamental reason to attach his ruling on the motion to reconsider because the court made a ruling and said this is what we're going to do on the pensions and retirement accounts this is what i think it's fair counsel then how the motion to reconsider saying no no no you took into account the social security and i think it's interesting because john kerry trying to in the motion to reconsider specifically aggressive staff and i i don't know how the division of said benefits ironically it was the petitioner who argued that the proper consideration ought to be given for the social security benefit was because petitioner had to pay into t r s and therefore had less money coming into the marriage that's essentially what the argument was and so that's how this entire issue got phrased it was raised by petitioner and petitioner to counsel the court goes to some length to say  that you did not fight while agreeing petitioner so security could not be divided the court did not find the reasoning of the petitioner that he should be given more property because he paid more into the marriage because my client paid in the t r s he found that that was not persuasive and then the court goes on to say well ok if this isn't what i consider i understand that your argument i understand why you think that that's a mistake i i just a trial judge made what did i consider and then he goes on then s tell you quite specifically what he considered and what he considered are the very factors under the statute as to the age health amount of sources of income occasional skills employ ability of the parties the estates the liability the needs of each party the court looked at the contribution each party had made to the marriage and so the court goes to some link to say look this isn't about offsetting or considering the social security that's an argument you've made what i did is exactly what i asked the crowd and supposed to do i considered all of the factors and when i considered all of the factors here is my ruling and so as i stand here i consider prospective so security benefits in his or her resolving the motion to reconsider he indicated that it influenced the court's review of the party's economics or circumstances as you pointed out  benefits out of the divorce case was quote in that be read to be interpreted that it may not be used in any man including the manner in which the writer used to hear well i think that's a very difficult question i think the supreme court certainly said this is what i do believe if you read it it's very difficult to say anything other than they're saying look we mean i've quoted in my brief because i want to be fair they do say we hold congress intended to keep so security benefits out of divorce cases but i think what the court was saying is look if that is not i actually think what jeff reiner ted is that is not other than consciously saying that it was raised and so it came across is not to say that he relied upon it for that is what he based his opinion upon and certainly disport there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the ruling of the court t out of this district and i certainly was supportive of it however the supreme court has told us what it wishes to do but i don't think in this particular case that makes good reinard decision reversible because  goes without even knowing the response in the miller case to some length to talk about the total picture and not just the issue of social security he specifically says i didn't just do an offset i looked at the total picture and so when you look at case the court did not did not commit reversible error and you're going to have to give the court a great deal of discretion because it was in the situation of considering all of the factors and being in a position to  so i mean that's why i think this is a simple because i think with the standard of review and with what judge reinard specifically put in the ruling on the motion for reconsideration about what i considered this is so much broader than that i think that the truck court out of the apartment i do i do indicate just in case because i i don't know where this court is going but i do think in the event you say look there was just a little bit too much reference to still security and i don't now certainly there's nothing you can do and both of us agreed that it would be remained and i don't know anything else you could do but we managed if that is what in fact this court determines but i certainly think there is sufficient information in the record there is certainly reiners ruling certainly can be affirmed on the  and i'd like an opportunity to do that in this case miss over referenced you should between her and myself and very wary of her telling me that the letter stated that this issue is not right because the within three days after the judgment and then it becomes into effect later she has not actually before this morning rockslides mentioned any other defects that she's seen with appendix rather wise order from just shriner that was incorporated into the just the solution states is in paragraph eight a says with the exception of the issue of the social security versus t r s the courts his order on the motion reconsider he says brings up my argument it's well one of the arguments i made regarding this that's not to say i'm the one who asked the court to consider the social theory issue actually