which maintenance rehabilitative maintenance was awarded for thirty six months in the amount of fifty five hundred dollars per month at the time there was one minor child sole custody had been awarded to sandra and  again a contested hearing the court intruding order in which it found that while sandra had made reasonable efforts to try and become financially independent your circumstances beyond her control she had been unable to reach that goal and so and timely six nineteen motion for involuntary dismissal was filed by the former husband james and following way hearing arguments on that motion for dismissal the court granted the dismiss and the notice of appeal is timely filed now there is just one real issue in this case that we allege for the court's consideration and that is whether or not the trial court h the petition had been timely filed prior to terminations that means ward and two the parties had never entered into an agreement pursuant to section five zero two of the illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act specifically agreeing to restrict or provides that any judgment made subject to modification if it is timely filed and so if we again if we look at the facts in this case the maintenance order that was maintenance period and in the titian it alleged all the appropriate statutory requirements that is mainly there being a substantial change in circumstances and that she alleged that she was suffering from breast facts and those facts all have to be deemed to be good and true and so we have we have no issues here we are going to pleadings regarding any statutory terminating factors that would have been the other the only other way in which the court could have lost such a mature subject matter jurisdiction so when the trial court be interpreted its january two thousand and seven  did he believe that path was terminations and honestly we don't dispute it is his discretion to interpret his own order we feel that his water was a proper order in at this point when the court determines that because conclude in its mind means terminate therefore he loses subject matter jurisdiction we feel that that is contrary to not just section five ten eighty five readable absent an agreement by the parties under section five zero two so for those reasons we believe that there was clearly proper subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court here when it found that it did not have  wasn't actually contrary to the wall at that point in time form at the time it does bear and it is this edition in january two thousand and seven one versus koster was not either from the second district nor from the supreme court i would argue that tucker case which counsel refers to rehearsal over because ms the for miss hardy didn't appeal that decision within thirty days of the january two thousand and seven order the order is with the  them and because frankly i think it's also important the fact that after that decision was made in january of two thousand and seven the former mrs hardy filed a very extensive motion to as you just said quite happily aren't all my points really i appreciate that but just briefly just so we're clear on the record the have a whole section here five ten pay five was effective january first two thousand  and obviously there would have been nothing preventing any smart attorney if they received an order saying that their client's maintenance was to be terminated on the state from appealing that decision under section five ten five ten five they could have years there was no reason for us to appeal that decision under the conners case which again is also cited in a case that i believe also addresses counsel's argument and which is trying to say that we should have known that we had to