oh i'm sorry i counsel him for a minute to you mentioned an expert witness this was about expert about getting an expert witness in the request to time to get an expert witness how to everest men comply with supreme court roll one hundred and ninety one b was the expert named what is there any was there anything about time in november of two thousand and nineteen you asked for time to respond but there was a name in any mention there of even thinking about an expert and you were given until december th of two thousand and nineteen we're looking at the question of whether the track court yes to its discretion in denying you additional time to get an expert so in looking at it in that context that's the context of my questions i senator with respect to the issue of fairness and putting collateral estoppel aside for a minute isn't this issue forfeited for another reason  indicated at page five of your brief that this court and i'm paraphrasing must review the response to the motion for summary judgment and will determine that factual questions existed and my question is since when is it the job of the appellate court to construct your legal argument or a party's legal argument for it to search the record for error and a material issue have sadly passed judgement should have been granted i missed the point of the fairness of the marital settlement agreement you tell us you can appellate court go find the argument in what happened at the trial court go look at the response to the motion for summary judgment and it's in there now since when is that a cogent legal  and isn't that required by the supreme court rules that is for a party to construct a cogent legal argument for us to review an issue requirement must be made so  we may look at it as for future may we not what allegation raises a genuine issue the tiriel fact were guarding the marital settlement agreement that mr evers men settle for a lesser settlement then would have been received matter simply because the eversmann did not have an expert summary judgment was entered in this matter because everts been failed to meet his burden of production we supplied affidavits we supplied deposition transcripts and they were unable to show that there was any question imperials the act which precludes summary judgment in favor of the attorneys counsel today counsel in his briefs wants to continually point to the allegations in his complaint to support there was a question of that it is well settled law that you cannot create a question effect of somebody supplies affidavits in depositions by because you're right it was their burden of proof in this case you're an expert testimony is usually required to determine whether a settlement agreement is spare and reasonable so why isn't it an abuse of discretion not to allow defendant leave to obtain an expert because he didn't follow the rules rule one hundred and ninety one b says you need to file an affidavit with the court and he needed to tell the poor who the expert was and what opinions he thought he could get f to get somebody even today counsel has an argue what he thinks an expert would do he's not suggesting that he's aware of expert testimony that would say that the settlement was not fair and reasonable that the seventy five thousand dollars exceed and he also talked about the seventy five thousand dollars with an accountant he testified that he willingly agreed to pay the seventy five thousand dollars and then he entered into the marital settlement agreement willey those are that are undisputed clayton's has not in any way suggested those are in rock he's complaining that he doesn't think that the seventy five thousand dollars was adequately explained to his client but that doesn't mean that seventy five thousand dollars wasn't fair or reasonable he's complaining that his client felt pressured to enter into the marital settlement game that in no way means that the marital settlement agreement was a fair and reasonable the facts support with the terms of the marital settlement in the only issue here was that the administrator at a different interpretation of those quadrilles because of the administrators different interpretation dition or work at be done on years we had taken a number depositions there was absolutely no discovery and all the depositions both parties wanted didn't say except for experts which hadn't been done yet all the depositions both parties wanted to take had been taken wit discovery had been complied with ages ago it was nothing open we went to court after that was done we advised the trial court a we've done we're done taking that non experts depositions we'd like to f reasonable wasn't fair there was nothing presented to the court but again well i think there clearly was an abuse discretion on behalf of the trial court even as we're sitting here today  seems to this court i had an expert that would say x is seen i should have been given leave to get an expert who may be would create a question of that that horses are and to finding that that agreement was fairly reasonable and even what was it was fair and reasonable based on mr ever through testability brought about by his attorneys russell advice to him that he had to testify that it was after reading the was not going to get a better deal at trial and it might be worse now that's a breach of the standard of care you know this data breach how a set of breaches a standard it has to be proven that it was not fair or reasonable but has to said in divorce correct there was no simulation in pretrial conferences attorneys said here to the professional standards of responsibility certainly gave their best opinions that wasn't my experience that this was a game so to speak and hopefully most attorneys do get that way but not always and sometimes the action misquoted misstated and that comes up with if we are told that the person makes fifty thousand dollars a year in that pretrial and we make a recommendation if the child support a baby is based on it but it turns out a trial if they could only prove thirty five thousand dollars a year that your decision is going to be different than what your recommendation was and that those have no choice but to agree that it's a better deal than what you're going to get a trial