employed as a pharmaceutical sales representative the testimony of ms macy and i know the court is familiar with her record but i think there are certain key points which  testified that richard cram sees employment for position was the laminated he was not replaced by another employee second she testified that hundreds of folks with and the pharmaceutical sales force deemphasized are also important which is what this terminations of employment was not number one it had nothing to do with richard's performance number two it had nothing to do with r m a which is within the first appeal of this case it had nothing to do with richard having taken short term disability which again was an issue which we dealt with in the first appeal of this case and most importantly it was not bob and terry and richard's art and it had nothing to do with anything within richard's control based on that that second i look at the judgement the dissolution of marriage again that said absolutely nothing about richard leaving g s k then i looked at the transcript of the hearing where richard had filed a motion to reopen proofs which was ultimately did not but what the trial court said there was richard would be getting basically severance benefits for one year and  wouldn't change for one year and anything beyond that would be sheer speculation now what the court said actually and i believe november of two thousand and fourteen this may not match up what the trial court said its september sixth two thousand and seventeen order i don't know if the court remember forgot that it spoke those words but those are clearly in the record to at have this written down property to six were made notes but that is general way to make sure that somebody just doesn't follow the court order and that there is a source of money to make sure that the recipient gets the n com but he have reported here saying and i understand you're saying that there's no evidence in the letter that at the time the trial or place the lien on the articles with real estate it was doing so because it contemplated  he might be retiring but at the time of the hearing on the motion of modify he says that's why i did it why shouldn't we make the matters worse well if we look at the cases where question that tells us about those cases but we want to know is what about this case are we supposed to disregard what the trial judge said or do we seem to be implying just leave them court and the statement that his being focused on was i believe the last sentence of that paragraph if we look at the paragraph before which i previously addressed as well as othe paragraph as a whole it does not support the conclusion that was stated by the trial court i don't know precisely what the trial court remembered from the first hearing but what i do have is the transcript  practice very good practice but i don't feel so we're not going to reverse the trial court because the court didn't sufficiently explain its ruling well i think if we look at the whole of the decision the spousal maintenance component is with the income of pardons if we go back to the original judgment it goes through the mathematics of five zero four and three birds he's me two thirds of richard's income was based on his employment from g s that employment is gone and it's gone for ever the trial court also mentioned that richard had continued to pay the spousal maintenance over the course of one a little bit over two years but we also had evidence that number one he received a year's worth of salary as a severance  two he had two years of unemployment benefits which ran out and i believe chuen of two thousand and seventeen two months worth a try so in other words his income sources had completely dried up in terms of other aspects of the ability to pay we do have the division of assets from the original judgment for dissolution of marriage the trial judge said richard received substantial assets and as a result i don't think there is too much there what we have to focus on is the income because that's the standard that they were in the original years we really have to focus on the circumstances of both of them are us and what we have is diane side of the equation was never really a grass she had the ability to access income from social security as well as from a very substantial retirement account which was awarded to her in the divorce and she had not done so richard on the other hand his sole source of income was farm which has limited means and most of the land was tied up in government c r p programs which is something that you're kind of stuck with because it's subject on track so we believe the trial court heard about anyone's income and the record shows it was true thirds of is income here the last point which i roll in is rule two sixteen in which the reason i mention it is what i am seeing as a practitioner is of reactions to two sixteen requests not just in adams county but in sangamon peoria cook county we are getting requests such as the one here that says we admit the pertinent to the case now before the court well justice stockmen in this case the objections were to foundation hearsay and anything else that might be a don't it seems to me that what we're talking about here is pretrial discovery stuff where we're called to the court's attention as we're preparing for hearing we body witness to get those documents and to have accounts let me put it in a different way what say that instead of adding this circle also to that you were talking about putting abductions and so forth time came for moving or admission of those documents then where you were when you had the responses that were actually made here because you would still be facing an objection regarding relevance o regarding peers say you would have to establish the relevance of the non here's a nature of those documents it wouldn't matter if they said this for each of those well in terms of hearsay i think he had met we'd get around that if it is a document that is kept in the north regular course of business in terms of relevance that's always going to be an issue with any document is it relevant to the case or not but in terms of the foundation and hearsay i believe two sixteen should let you get past those objections from those if so frankly what i am seeing is a whole lot of objections every time request w and there is really relatively sparse case law on to sixteen right now so that's why i'm asking the court to address that point because it is becoming an issue which i personally am seeing and i'm opinion in both parts we have a situation where we have had extensive litigation in this case and again in two thousand and twelve and now it's almost going on six years in requesting knowing of mr ramsey age retirement or whatever this is he had this plan that that would be subject to the future payment potential there was a primary role yes so what how much was enough the remainder of this i mean that all of it obviously was to local but there we've maintained that there was land that he could a farm there was a land that his attorney at that time so there was some evidence in september he received a final notice before the decision was even rendered there was a motion to reconsider and also a motion due to reopen  bonus as a severance package and then after that he took his short term disability so to answer your question yes it was and then even before the judgement there was a motion filed by mr cram's h attorney at that time stating that his employment was going to be terminated though some deadline credence to the trial court statements made following the hearing on the motion of modified that the t seed there's a lot of things that he did before the dissolution order was entered i mean he was working full time for the g s a and he also had the acreage have that was granted and while the court here said we need to go back and there has to be an evidentiary hearing worth both parties have the right to cross examine the witnesses and and to have a full evidence since we did that i mean the full here was well over a couple days i think of the evidence presented not only attacking whether or not he was voluntarily or involuntary  that he had the burden of proof and he i think even mentioned that the evidence presented if you're going to balance with certain equal so found that he does not it's the same as a burden in the second part had to do with the wheat on the year forty acres were being farmed and the rest was rubbish in other words could the improvement be made as mr sharon said grass the answer is maybe but we're talking something that would take place over many many years the judgement was answered so i will leave that that just is not the way things should be i don't think that when maintenance is set based on and and then to act at all and say well a better description would be indefinite and award of permanent maintenance may be modified or terminated as provided by section five ten what we have here is a guy who lost a job  stone losing that substantial of a piece of income really puts him in a position where permanent does mean every last thing is he could continue to pay this until the day he dies by selling off the farm i