nothing in writing in the marital settlement agreement which was then incorporated in the judgment of dissolution so it doesn't explicitly say that however the make it was me review und really both of them that is john and judith that she would not be able to earn income commensurate with the standard of living that she enjoyed during the marriage well as far as employment is concerned well but they have had a career i mean she never got her license and never really was teaching at that point i mean i believe she was a counselor etc but that's very different mean she did go out and get a job at target but proof that he considered this rehabilitative was she even present who she was so how would she know that i was you know well from anything written that she received or anything the assets that she did have but is so does the law require that a former wife deplete those assets in order to maintain a standard of living that the parties enjoyed during to have to live on something in addition to social security if she if her life exceeds where it is now and isn't that what her property and income from that property would be for that she is receiving her share of that money right now because of her cage he has not received her because he's he's too young to receive it but she is receiving i think it's of seventeen per month but in addition to that she has she received  are in for twenty years but now is it your position that maintenance should have terminated yesterday but now where we did not find a copy of a motion to terminate maintenance in this court file in this record is there one that was filed it was in use in his response to the motion for her petition for review so it was incorporated in the response to her petition for the review is where you put continued and she can time it would also be so it's your contention that somewhere in this record there is a formal motion to terminate yes yes and when was it has sufficient financial resources to sustain her for decades to come in in a can trial case the court out found that it was an abuse of discretion not to terminate maintenance but well we don't know you know could have been someone in our forty's fifty's sixty's you know if she was in her sixty's it means that i would think that would be a pretty important distinguishing factor for us with respect ninety seven there were no reasonable efforts at rehabilitation or no reason to believe that efforts at rehabilitation to become self sufficient exist very similar to this case which ms growth he was sixty that she had made efforts to become self sufficient and in light of back to me didn't she really concede that this was supposed to have been rehabilitative maintenance i suppose there's some implication i don't think it's explicit  say fictitious but yet she had notice of the hearing percent correct and her husband had counsel and was an officer of the court and i assume made representations on the record to the court with respect to that we live in my wor that two and a half years after the divorce and she again not having a license degree in illinois and not feeling like there was a prospect of beginning a licensed career in her mid sixty's sought whatever employment she could she still works i wanted fifteen seasonal weeks heidi by target she's the only woman who has extended extra hours throughout the rest of the year so she has made efforts i think we have but if she did i mean the st two years or so she traveled in and she said that there was some sort of she was emotionally drained by this divorce the ok so she was not maybe didn't want a divorce but it became inevitable but if she didn't think she had to do anything to support herself why then did she get why did she go out to look for a what their son she testified i think that she had to use some of her property but yet there seems to be a disagreement that she used any of her property what did she use her money benefit to them and they don't think it's that she's going to join him in his crude standard of living i think that if the maintenance is set at the correct the mil i think it actually would be commensurate with the lifestyle and needs of the parties during the specifically held that there is a difference between a review proceeding and a modification proceeding a judge to follow was the author of that decision so why should we look outside of her district when we have a case which is gold in the two them looking at the right provision here it says deceptive applies to all proceedings commenced after it's effective date for the modification of judgment that is different that's a term of art is it not that's different than review so when you say the statu changed that certainly on its face then provision applies to modification proceedings and so here we're looking at review in a situation like this case the trial court can be adjudicating or presenting a review hearing as well respondent doesn't have to present any evidence other than the refutation of the evidence presented  court that it not extend me as any further is another thing to argue that she's remarried therefore it should terminate based upon the modification brought  have to show that there's been a substantial change in circumstances and that means well then why wouldn't the movement have to prove that they aren't married or that they're not co habiting in order to continue the maintenance if it's the burden of the movement to extend maintenance don't to have to prove or disprove all the negative or of that so yes to that extent but if they're not remarried i don't think they have proved it at the hearing from council so if you don't believe that there's a difference between the review and modification proceedings and that the guidelines apply to both of a legend show a substantial change of circumstances and that maintenance is appropriate if we thought that in three thousand dollars remote were the exact correct figure hypothetically speaking let's say it's right on guidelines perhaps in the file there anything that would prevent a court from doing i don't think there is also did you have a different view of what the law was when you filed the separate petition well perhaps i thought that we'd better file the review  if a trial form required to apply the guidelines would it not and be implied that the legislature was attempting to impose a guideline  guidelines have to be imposed then does that then mean that his discretion to leave the status quo ante in effect is no longer the law and he can't do it and therefore it's imposed its own exercise of statutory discretion on a judge who during review thought that it should be three thousand dollars a month but now is told it should be eight thousand a month be based upon the mandatory half location of the guidelines from the statute that your question reflects why it's wrong to conclude that the legislature meant to take that discretion away and i don't have legislative history well i don't know that a opposing spouse should be a factor d m and applied such that the standard of living present when he should be enhanced to the level of the standard of same guidelines to apply for whatever reason you do that and it's certainly never intended to contradict a longstanding walk everywhere in the state that the house should have as hosts possible state or living that he or she you agree that it relates to the filing of the particular petition or does it lead to the filing of the initial pleading that would ultimately result in a it still does not relate to the lifestyle that she had before what if she does get a teaching job and a sub job even with her credentials and makes twenty thousand dollars a year that still isn't i mean didn't you establish anything in this record that she could make eczema and of dollars as a teacher substitute or otherwise to get her to that point well scenario it really would be really wouldn't take a lot because under the under under the tax analysis with the make and she was she was headed income of approximately fifty nine thousand dollars so basically if any evidence as to the cost of a teaching degree was there any evidence that she actually applied to aid local school districts or several local school districts under the existing correct so if we look at that and that met her needs at that time we have to show how are we have to see that either her needs increased and she could not handle  or it would be and he had an increase in his salary which we know he did and therefore we now have two significant change in circumstances travel and travel seem to be a rather significant amount of the prior lifestyle of these parties probably because of the airline rules after time they have changed i guess a little bit since and but i her her property that was given to her feet for these things and refute the fact that she did not hack it was not adequate to meet  new i have one other question going back to ada one c and the point that you made with respect to your feeling that golden no longer was applicable as i had pointed out and it was eight  reflects the legislature use the word modification of a judgement the legislature knew the difference and knew at that time too that they're worth two different types of proceedings five talks about not only modification but also in that section review proceedings so to say that modification i mean the legislature if they wanted to include have included my review proceedings in modification would have spelled it out would have said modification and review would they not perhaps they should have but there's a trade to visualize the page in my mind i see the word modification but by if the legislature does say it's in all proceedings this is at the very end of that st paragraph before the enumeration of the factors as well as in proceedings in which maintenance is being review prayers that the requests for terminations be denied uphold the denial of the requests for terminations when he indicated that what it actually