land that's referred to as practice one or two throughout the record i think it's fair to say that the grafting in this case was probably less than perfect we think the intention deed equally divided is the interest in the land that he owned with karen that the part that he he gave half of that would go i was x wife half of what he would keep in the court held that the half that he kept was still on just in joint tenancy with parent is our position below and it is fear of the out that's error in fact that when the unity of interest was destroyed by that deed quite frankly i don't think there was any argument in response to our position realistically either in the trial should not be the the at and i like i can't say that i'd like to be recently enough to be able to answer that was certainty but the tracks one and two as i understand were david's father to him and bade other pieces of land also convey a half interest because david's father now we own that cracks one and two together he conveyed his half interest david as part of  t so i think from that sam point belief descriptions of the same interests are just different going on and again the divorce decree which is the basis for the deed says we split all the real estate all especially when there's something referred to specifically in the deed such as the horse capri so that in sitting down taking a look at this the court is not prohibited from looking at the deed and picture again it's clear it was he was giving her out of everything don't so i think it's realistically that some will and it's kind of curious in this case that the i agree with mr fleming this case is resolved by the court construing in determining the meaning and the fact of the two thousand feet from david to karen but of course we differ considerably on how that should be percent of david's interest it says a fifty percent interest reference was also the conveyance to david from his father in which he was conveyed the fifty percent interest we need to look for a first course of the deed sell the good deed has no ambiguity it says i am warranting guaranteeing ownership to am of a fifty percent no i don't think that's what the deeds the deets say is the deed says i am guaranteeing to an a fifty percent interest in the real estate described on the attached that are involved here oh well from the point of view of the people involved in the divorce there are really no other factors other than making an even split oh well there there is the factor of really the fact that david acquired his interest in two different of the interest there because she indicates in her affidavit your honor that they were aware of karen's interest in the property however in the documentation of prepared to be that was prepared made no reference david agreed to convey a one half interest to and he did that by this deed knowing full well that he owned a half interest together with care is willing to continue an ownership of that one fourth interest with hers joint tenant as the court reflected that he probably did want to give up the chance of receiving something in the event a parent died before him they're very close brother and sister could receive this property melody prior to the marriage one from his father after their marriage and i'm intrigued by the by the way the court uses the expiration of the marital property but i don't know if the chip the court was using that as a  term of art or got off but certainly be the deed from now only a given prior to the marriage would not make this would not make that one fourth interest of marital property so i think with that context in mind that this deed that says on its face that is warranting the ownership of one half the interest transfers to i am the one half the interest that he received from carroll as well as the half interest in the other property just not a part and that context of the long term ownership some what seventeen or fourteen years before this conveyance for his father i think david was really intending to maintain that i think it's important to consider that  sitting in your office and he tells you he wants to do what you just suggested to us he wants the how hard would have been for you to figure out a way to graph that so that would be reflected in the deed certainly it could be and i would also you know nothing in this the comes close those of that's correct and nothing in this deed says he is guaranteeing ownership of anything less than fifty percent what what would we be faced she owns a fifty percent interest now for her own purposes purposes of her family now she's taking a different position oh no no we were just kidding i wasn't getting a three eight getting a half interest i was getting three gates well now she's now she's saying she received less than eight said that she was getting how in the world can title companies he expected to examine deeds of this nature as in fact it shows in the record here that the local title company examined  that went to it went to kara i realize that finding is not completely on the court but how can we set up a situation in which title companies are asked to guarantee ownership of a substantial substantially we don't think it is ambiguous or it says fifty percent but as i say david gave a special warranty it wasn't a quit claim deed all the other deeds in the chain of title here that we're discussing now like carol those are all quit claim  i'm giving you whatever i had david could have given a quit claim deed here half of what i have would have been very simple he didn't do that i don't think david knowingly would have it would be nice to see what it said maybe it says something that would have clarified this week we don't know but it's not there so we're to do the best we can without it i guess we do locally my point though is that the speed cannot  very quite often on divorces there is a reciprocal lead back from the other party to establish fifty percent that wasn't done here and it's our a position your honor that the there really is no evidence to support the trial court's finding that affidavit was filed in connection with the cross motion for summary judgment she had ample time to state her case state her situation just as clearly and completely as possible never subject to cross examination what that affidavit say is is that she gets fifty or fifty percent of the farm it doesn't say fifty percent of david's interest it also does not say she says that they knew about karen's interest but she doesn't say how they were addressing that tr's so i think with lee the silence that we have and that affidavit it shows that in fact for summary judgment pending your honor i don't know but it was it was filed in connection with the hearing on the motion for summary judgment before the court's ruling was there in two thousand and fourteen probably so that would assist this new term meaning with the intent loans well i believe so because if if she is taking on half of the debt then certainly she would be wanting to take on ownership of half of the farm including tracks one and two why would she  interest to i had no effect on his remaining interest in joint tenancy with with care the defendant seek to lump together its history force interest as if that's being  i do want to address a couple of i've referred to them in by notes of his red herrings in this matter in there are a brief the defendants in the reply brief contend that we could have filed a reformation and get got now out of this case been pending for four years and if the defendants felt that they had a cause of action for reformation of the state to say something other than what it says and means then they had ample opportunity to do that david's a state now that he has died and david himself will be a state as a representative of his could very well have entirely different ideas about this but to get all the biggest state and i am may agree for their own purposes to have a three eights conveyance even though it said a half because then that gives them the entire three fourths so just to suit their present purposes they're taking a position that i am never the judgment of divorce that indicates that there is any non marital party property recognized and sort of side to mr rex wrote and quite frankly i think farmland in illinois which appeared to include everything and it's certainly not unusual when parties have been married for a fairer amount of time that if they've got large amounts of property and there are some not marital property here that that's just kind of thrown in the hopper not my experience when well as a divorce lawyer i certainly would not recommend that my clients either but i have seen it happen before and the the  in illinois without any it doesn't make any distinction between marital marital and quite frankly although i think it's a very intriguing point it's not something that came up in this case at all it's not argued in the crowd part way shape or  there's a number of things are trying to say or in response to mr parker's argument and i probably will not get them all in but i think the the court probably court found that david's intent was to convey in essence three nothing in there he indicated that they intended to treat the the interest that he own with his sister any differently than everything else there's nothing that says it doesn't say  she gets half of everything except for the part that i have with my sister wish i'm keeping over here and that the the suggestion that  father will gee i'd like to hang on to my share of joint tenancy property as such because if parent dies for me then i keep the whole thing there's actually nothing in the in the record to support that it's pure speculation and  did not go that route there's nothing nothing in the record that i recall relevant to this issue at least that the past do with the closeness of the siblings or any other thing about their or their relationship so i don't think that i something that had any bearing on the crowd or dems not in the record or the court this court consider but the the intent was as forth in the again the divorce agreement and i think we have to keep looking at the app and keeping in mind once again that the deed itself expressively references the divorce agreement as the basis for the deed and that this was done and i think there's about six weeks between the approval of the court order on that was december seventeen aside from the fact that the expressly references the the divorce judgment and once again out there's no question that in response force questions mr carpenter that that these documents could have been drafted more ar fully and either point in either direction but the fact is that if you look at the and you see the reference to the to the divorce agreement you can't that we cited in our brief say that that you need to consider even that you can't even sit there and say well there's no ambiguity if someone raises the question that there is a song some something else