court to do it but the court clearly have jurisdiction to do it that's not the issue but just mention it yes and i think they'll feel very amorphous like you know it's it's pretty clear it's become pretty clear so the question is the court have the authority to so if we don't view the order is void you lose are appropriate before the court then by entering our order the court has committed there but the order there was no agreement and the testimony of the league with those sides having presented evidence of both sides having argued this white arguing for the court and then what we have as a result is this modified judgment which means the same language and yet it's been stipulated to the parties also filed a stipulation to in turn of the modified judgment and then here he's saying that judgment because there were some negotiation you got something you want it with respect to the pension plan and so he was willing to accept this judgment as to what requires a written agreement with the statute it requires either a written agreement word or all agreement that's provided to the court orally and then written up in a judgment it can be either way and so and if it were denied back again in two thousand and three then you could have appealed that decision and beginning chose not to do so so to come back now i ask this for three five you know his right to appeal i think i iranians i think it's a waste of judicial resources and i think that the the policy arguments favor the finality of judgments because of the disastrous consequences which result when  various are allowed to be collaterally attacked many years later the some of the cases that mr white cited originally his free to say pointed out are based on an old interpretation of subject matter appeal so yes if you don't do that you don't file an appeal and the courts have subject matter jurisdiction then the order remains in effect between the parties and in this case i think there's no unconscionable result here because mr white was the one with my responsibility to appeal and instead after six months assumably of negotiations he stipulated to entry of this modified judgement and then he said he's waiting parties agreed to hear i think mr white's actions shows that there must have been some agreement because you failed to take any further steps to have the order voided or review because very which was statutorily required to take place within six months of a child being removed from did not happen in that time frame and i think in that case is where this court actually his right to appeal it he would not appeal it did not move forward on his motion to reconsider and so he is waive the right to do so now when there is no other alternative possible here there are many other alternatives also because we're looking at a stipulated agreement really you notice if you leave it modified judgment you're looking at a situation in which the you should not be allowed to claim they are now seven years later if you were obviously numerous similar orders are subject to the latter which really would be a whether or not there are other jobs out there somewhere that there's we don't know because we there was never an opportunity to litigate that issue but assuming there are there are any other jobs out there were you could afford to pay fifty four thousand dollars a year  what are you going to do i guess the question is what is he going to do and i think that the problem is that it was really his own air and day and i think same time again this state has not