the representative for that and this domestic relations perception is to be narrowly construed and it is only to take jurisdiction away from the district company and if they no longer had an investment in the company how that's a best a juror occurred and instead of responding to that information or providing any information they stated through their counsel their general coun s begins investigating the taxes that her counsel started questioning the company trying to find out information as to the ownership and so on two thousand and that's when that their general counsel thanks all of those interests appear and and make a determination as to how their interests should be split we are asking that the agreement it's basically a contract between two parties being enforced and that her interests should be entitled to receive her interest case because the claims made in the federal action are inextricably intertwined with the family courts divorce decree the family court for the state of hawaii has retained jurisdiction in this case the  the hawaii family court by filing a statement of assets and debts which omitted that ownership interest moreover he had perjured himself in front of a white family court by the declaration he filed in january of tw raises issues of notice and waiver the appellant claims in her complaint that mr mcfarland repeatedly assured her during their marriage he had an ownership interest in the public through and yet in the app said in debt regarding the alleged omission on the assets and debts statement and that's a matter to be decided by the hawaii family court where the initial filing was made and finally the courts that accept this will also have to interpret the they were concluded before the end of the marriage those payments but if as the appellant contends such payments were received after the end of the marriage then the why of family court will have to interpret its own decree it will have to decide whether lowly payments the district court here as representative once his father died over his objections equating that there was something of a conflict of interest between the hogs interests and his companies  available here because it is does not involve divorce child custody or alimony and that's not accurate if helen claims that this case falls outside the exception because she has pled her case under tort in contract you know i'll take three and a half almost all the talking the trial court as the judges know the divorce settlement the husband disclosed the other six percent interest in the company  the wife excepted her share of that in the divorce settlement two years later after the divorce had been finalized the husband received twenty five percent of the proceeds by reason of what the court referred to as phantom equity the wives sued the husband claiming the irish guard corps further said the domestic relations exception covers attempts to determine or modifies not only alimony awards but also the marital property during divorce  regarding property settlement is the same as making the decree in the st place for the purposes of the exception of those militate in favor of applying the exception here decree where as here there is an action to enforce that decree myriad merely pled under different different other series whereas here a wife family court and its process these are implicated by the claim that mr divorce decree based on the allegedly fraudulent two thousand and twelve asked of that statement and finally were the court bill in any event may have to interpret the decree by determining whether the repayment of a blown without utah michael macfarlane and have an interest in that and that entity and therefore that is why northern california was the correct by bringing that action and i do not believe that we would be able if you know if there's any if we get the documents from the public group i mention see what happened to the entrance and what distributions were actually made we would be able to determine whether they ever were