mrs service credit as a component of three hundred and twenty months of aggravated practice which was used to calculate the retirement annuity of a hassle member of an illinois state employees retirement system are probably characterized as the marital or non marital where the qualifying event for the establishment of the forty eight months of permissive service credit was an active duty military service which was completed twenty years before the marriage or characterized as marital where the contribution which was also required to complete eligibility was paid during the marriage the issue before this court is not merely whether the rd history majority was correct in reversing the trial court specifically the trial court's determination that forty eight months of permissive service credit was not merit because it was by merely derived from military service twenty years were marriage but we are also required to beyond that address the broader ruling from the majority of the rd district which held that all enhancements to an illinois state pension are required to be deemed miracle when the option of purchasing the credits is exercised during the marriage with marital funds now i contend that this broader ruling should be reconsidered by this work because it specifically referred to two sentence sentences from one very specific case a two thousand repays from the history referred to in the greases the ramsey case the trial court conclude component of pension as america non marital but that ramsey was a case that involved the valuation of that pension after making these two distinctions  ramsey the rd district majority then adopts one sentence from the ramsey decision which is the sentence that includes that because all pension and handsome and dependent upon the in the ramsey case mediately succeed in that sentence which nd sentence sentence the trial court in its opinion underline and that nd sentence is included  in the unusual case where the specific entitle months are not purely derivative of that portion of the enhancements not derived from the right to receive the pension itself that portion is the pension  now not the the fact that the pension was the received power this is not a fact the characterization of it component of the future pains the asset that we're talking about dividing is a public pension annuity which is a series of monthly payments and the population protocol for those monthly payments is determined by the ongoing and so the fact that he had already received some payments during the marriage doesn't change how we characterize the future payments to be received because the dissolution act in five hundred and three does not focus on receipt of benefits talks about your legal work why how does one acquire those so if in fact the receipt of benefits was what the relevant consideration is then as the the in the briefs but several of the districts have adopted the hunt analysis and not only that you know when the family law study commission reviewed the employee or ten years prior to your marriage then you work another five years after the marriage than two thirds of your pension is non marital and one rd is marriage and that both marital non marital characteristics to an illinois public and she might question before this court is how do you wire the permissive service credits beyond the regular service credits because there's is america if we have the records to prove that all of this is unleased sit down and all of his unused vacation was from prior to the marriage our contention is that that component would be just as non marital as the regular service credit is non marital from the time that he worked as an employee prior to becoming married the nd type of permissive service credit in the cello case is the forty eight that but the statute intice of pates back possibility by stating that in those circumstances where you have a non marital passes and then there is a marital contribution to that asset then the marital status entitle to a reimbursement and that's exactly what the trial court did here because the contribution which was roughly nine thousand four hundred dollars and for that nine thousand four hundred dollars contribution fran chose pension increased by over one thousand four hundred dollars per month so that contribution was a almost nominal element of a stamp and she is right he was fifty seven years old when he retired and his pension increased by working one hundred dollars a month or a contribution of nine thousand dollars i suggest to you that the larger element of contribution which was the source of acquiring bad assets that were eight months was not the one thousand dollars check the source was the forty eight months of active duty in fact in the ramsey case but what ramsey case is instructive is that in ramsey the contribution was made after the marriage court in the ramsey case concluded that it's not the contribution it's not that shack that determines whether or not the asset itself is merit and the fundamental difference between ramsey and i'll show up is not necessarily the very specific nature of the pension enhanced minutes dealt with in the ramsey case in the ramsey court was indeed a pension upgrade that was the riveted of the entire pension that is the opposite of the pension handsome in the case in the old charlotte case yes the nominal payment was made during the marriage but that shouldn't be the trigger that determines the miracle or not marital character of of back forty eight months of permissive service credit that's part of the overall formula in calculating his total monthly annually that forty eight months service credit was from twenty years earl it become marital when it is jointly own this property right there's some interesting language in ramsey about the idea that part of the benefit that one receives in a public pension which we know is protected by the constitution from the st day of employment one of the benefits is that it cannot be diminished but it could be increased and so when one receives the benefit of a public pension on the st day a contingency is there that it could be increased the value of it could be increased and so there's some sense that maybe of this triggering of what's marital or not marital might have something to do with when someone joins the public pension can you trust that idea absolutely the the component of the rd hist non marital in a divorce case is a different question than the debian issue or the alteration of those pension benefits by the general assembly the question of how it is allocated as between husband and w is based on the language of the dissolution act which requires focusing on how it is why how each segment of the pension so we know that the segments attributed to the time that they actually provision in question specifically attributes the right to upgrade to a twenty year service or to upgrade which is calculated based upon pension as a whole that it then is in fact treated as if it is the same as the other aspects of the pension so it is marital to the extent it's marital and it's non marital to the extent it's not but what the rd district is saying is that it's always treated as  fact that there are two sections to the state employees retirement system dealing with military service their section one of four j this section in question which one for has subsections age group are in the title of contribution is if you served in active duty in the military service but you are an employee of the state within six months before your active duty service and after fifteen months so there are two different benefits provided by the general assembly for active duty military service and we're going to construe the dissolution act to have one be shared with the spouse because of a nominal contribution under fourteen dollars but yet we're going go to a spouse under one whole five years four or five years of military service simply because there was no contribution the contribution shouldn't be a it's not be there are two separate statutes where the legislature is rewarding military service not length of time in the in the pension system for one time the pension system is how they were teachers with the two dollars upgrade in how they were teachers with the early retirement option but there awarding state employees who served in the military service in a completely different fashion and that's gotta be recognized embrace incident to a dissolution take the example what if frank and he was married to a different wife during his military service and had been married to that same wife through the st part of his employment as a state police officer what if in that book or so there had been a pension doesn't she have a better right because she was married to him during the four years he served in the military then who always is a movie of who married him twenty years after he completed but was married to one when he wrote  language of the illinois dissolution of the act require this work to reverse the rd district concluding that its ruling that all upgrades all enhancements to a pension are not automatically are you saying that the presumption is defeated in this case since the military service that was part of b and hence the are you looking at that is that therefore property  distributed during the marriage is that a simplification of your argument as there were go no that's exactly the opposite argument is that thirty two dollars service credits were not wired during the marriage they were acquired prior to the marriage his employment which was before his marriage or is the trigger when the legislature orders created this new benefit or is it when the contribution that he wasn't married right right let me just ask you this counsel a slightly different scenario hypothetical let's just say those four years of military service that  t they wrote a check for five thousand dollars as a result of that military service and making it up as in it was  the married they're married in the check is instead of an enhancement of the state police pension it's just some type of stipend that the government decided to give people who served in the military during that forty  is that marital property it rejects the pension situations you know maybe they didn't have any money there maybe the wife had to use non marital funds to come up with the nine thousand dollars to get the enhancement because they had to have any effect whatsoever that it it reimbursement of its contribution that happens when a rock is added to a non marital house by marital contributions the marital state doesn't transmute the house into marital because you had  the house into a marital asset a ten thousand dollars contribution doesn't change what happens when he's eligible for that very that forty eight months is he gets one thousand four hundred dollars a month for while so the question of to the score is how did he have wired that interest how did he acquire that extra one thousand eight hundred dollars a month every year the rest of his life it was because of the elaborate action system that's been created by the state of illinois which in this particular component this particular right yes it has superabundance it has forty eight months of military service in it as a check if the conclusion is that this was acquired because of that check exactly what the tr and i think it was the last time this court was construing the only marriage in dissolution of marriage and a lengthy part of that opinion looked at different hypotheticals and said we can't construe a statute in a way that would lead to absurd inconvenient or unexpected results now in the old shoah case yes louisa choa was married to frank for one hundred and thirty eight months during the time he was a state police officer and she's entitled to the marital shere created by that one hundred and thirty eight months the rd district decision in this case gives her one hundred and ninety one months why because the check was written and that's wrong that's an absurd result she isn't titled who or one hundred and thirty eight months no doubt about it but the forty eight months that's attributed to the military service belongs to franco cho he served honorably at a nato air force base in west germany during that period of time and materially technically yes because he receives a independent pension from the air force which is clearly not but under the pension code there would have been value had he been an illinois state employee both before and immediately after his military service which he was not so he didn't qualify for the upgrade under section one hundred and five he only qualified for the upgrade under section one for which required the nominal  d you more than once referred to the forty eight months that you quire that i'm wondering if it's more accurately characterized as he was eligible for something because of those forty eight months and the el lity was that realized what the financial contribution was made during the marriage there's lots of terminology eligibility qualified stablished the right to do rides from that the only one that makes a difference is how they feel wired and the question is did he acquire it because he wrote a check during the marriage were video wire it because he served that forty months and if no one else has any other questions