contemplated in the miracle settlement agreement or on the property settlement agreement absolutely or i would read the court's attention to those two there's two points here pages  include any consideration received by her with respect to his provision in future services to the interested party that interested party turned out to be was are around accounting any future investment transactions affected any half of the interest part interested services going forward really also signed it down competition remit we says if you know he was fired left this deal he couldn't compete with these people for two years they also gave off half of their management fees and partners in reaching a benchmark you saw the four hundred million dollars they have to operate to they have to race and again this is all going off into the future now those are green engines knows our transaction example madonna's son has a contract through a company of hers to perform a con to perform a concert she still needs to perform the concert respective of whatever reason that she might have and that's the thing here is scientists somehow rather we're not being dollars benchmark in terms of fundraising and you know they also have another argument that the others that the parents council made there and you know he can still be fired and still get the stock spanish see oh ok well again i would look back to those paragraphs i would look to get any again i believe the fundamentally or was that the trial court did not do did not understand the two party aspect of this transaction being are here i have a particular familiarity with it that's of no moment but what it is of the moment is that the trial work was the wrong argument and it's being urged by you here and why do i say that and what do phone you didn't know was going to happen that was your question also just the fact that two thousand one hundred two thousand for which we were contemplating as part of this division we knew they had money big there was a value to bet that where she got the case it's a term of art were obviously in a court of law and sectional level clearly distinguishes the consideration from the added water to the from the consideration from all future services and use the ok the council says they've got for giving up certain things that would not have been part of this property settlement agreement between the this disclosure statement from the divorce is itself in there to show the standard of living over proximately twenty twenty five thousand dollars she has no realistic though the money passes and the corner significantly reduced it to seventy five hundred let me ask before you go please and this trooper said that nothing was given out by mr jones in the two thousand and eleven fund is your position was different than why you say he gave up benchmark and you continue on and also to raise future funds going forward this is a deal for the rest of his career and respectfully just you if this is a law office you know if this doesn't get reversed it's going to have a devastating effect on him and issue debt doesn't and that doesn't prevent the judge from hearing it it's actually design i mean eve would be designed to make it easier more judicially efficient to hear these actions together and as and then he filed an action for a breach of contract or he doesn't with all due respect he doesn't have a contract to sue want because that contract it's not like they have a separate contract between the two of them they have tracked that they signed it probably sell it greta and again