previously has one daughter from their earlier marriage she was the librarian for the jersey high school he was a farmer in the area at the time of their marriage standard into a prenuptial agreement agreement having to do with after acquired property of your two as a paragraph or at the arraignment and that basically says that after acquired property that's acquired after the marriage is jointly held as tenants in common by the husband and wife and that becomes an issue later are the couple remain married from nine hundred eighty one until five s way two thousand and eight is twenty seven year marriage but it was fifty nine when they were married in janus fifty one so it has the usual circumstances related twenty seven year marriage where i retirement is involved the final  and his passing away again there was very little discussion or adherence i think you'll find out though it doesn't become an issue in the appeal of your thankfully very very little reference livestock that are purchased for the farms those were simply were placed on some things that we own that time and that was not intended part of that he also acknowledged and i won't get into the details it's all set out in therefore getting a car and a camper a couple of other things to gain if it is not construed by the court that way in heck she is entitled to after acquired property including such things as machinery and life cycle and so forth then she doesn't get those items  have some financial difficulties previously jane and i and floyd had assisted him in part by signing one of the farms so he took in fact when he was in need and during their lifetime like lifetimes or fights lifetime and so it's on the other for children who are beneficiaries and well the prenuptial agreement made three provisions or two grant which indicated that after acquired property after the consummation the marriage was screened share the estate was open then january ninth two thousand and nine there were some meetings involving reading the well and so forth then jane basically was taught you don't take them to the well you're provided for in the prenuptial agreement so you really don't have involved in this case are there might be some dispute about whether she had access to counsel or the state so those are issues for another day i was first contacted in late june of two thousand and nine by jane well first of all they fi which by statute has other some three consecutive weeks and that's in may of two thousand and nine in the circuit court records it indicates it was in fact published that notification which was submitted by publication only said that any claim strike against the state must be filed by july fifteenth two thousand i jane first contacted me i believe in late june two thousand and nine because she had read the local so they're trying to sell my house and so the first thing i did was i proud of these pendants with a recorder's office in jersey county putting on notice anyone who happened by the farm that there was in fact this ante n antenuptial agreement did provide that she waived her right so well the second thing i filed was a claim against the well on the basis of this paragraph or out of the prenuptial agreement saying that she had a right to after acquired property and we would have to mitigate that and she was a known claimants to be a state and the third thing i asked for was a jury we did some discovery and we reached a point where we a claim against the state and the court found that these are issues that have to be resolved by the trial judge when it's remanded on the other claim which is a claim that says state the mandate of this court was filed w met a supplemental request to it or in her supplemental in her arbitration a supplemental request to produce documents and what they said to do with primarily was some bank accounts there were some bank accounts that rents of the farms the for rents for the farms basically ran one hundred thousand dollars a year right but these had to do with two thousand and seven rents two thousand eight rents and not yet been received i don't believe but i certainly to deposit in the names of the children had been purchased by floyd without consultation jane from head account or a hundred thousand dollars prior to his death what we wanted to do is do some discovery about those issues about whether in fact those were marital property or not their position the estate was that this was part of the farm that was owned by floyd therefore it was not marital property the position we took and we believe was supported by paragraph was that this was in fact marital assets and in response to our discovery which is the opening salvo we had taken depositions of the four children and of jane before we brought our first appeal that didn't follow the provisions of the ante nuptial agreement for example jane got a teacher's pension she got futures sure and she had a white trans policy she met him dollar for dollar from her teacher's pension for by year they maximize the gifts that they can give to the children farm and one of the farms was eighty four percent had been given to the children at that point and each year both for you and jane maximize the amount of  have of that farm that they give to the children without having extra patients i keep in mind that pursuant to the prenuptial agreement jane didn't own that farm but in order to maximize the amount that would not be subject to tax she waived she donated a portion of their farm to the children to men ever came an issue after revive the discovery and charlie after this case had been remanded by this court for determination of the claim under their prenuptial believe the u s supreme court in the case of well on tests a professional collection services versus oh well there was a violation of due process if an estate knew that there was a claimants it likely claimants against the estate and relied solely on publication to advise that claimant of the passage of the vigil and this is the opinion this is the shepherd happens that the fourth district this court that would that issue i think before the statute was passed but after the supreme court opinion and that cited in the andersen versus andersen versus central trucks case which is here and says it is a duty of representative to publish once each week for three successive weeks here's the language and shemale are delivered to each creditor of the defendant of the d c whose name and post office address are known to of limitations why is what are set up by publication brown known creditors and other is whatever set out by direct notice to no creditors and the third is that two years and basically what the station for that is seven fifty five i also yes five slash eighteen dash file which says every claim against the state of a decision except expenses of administration and surviving spouses of tao's a word is filed this all the since the state yes which says i was soon or a buyer all claims which could have been barred under this section are in any event barrack two years after the season step whether or not letters of office are issued upon the yes five slash twenty eight eleven prior to closing the estate that the representative meister may or deliver challenges interested persons and accounting and check out the part of verified action three so before they close the estate they have the suburban of the estate to establish that they took recent care to determine what known creditors there were of the scenes and they were given actual notice ali in this instance there's no dispute that the only notice it was provided for was the publication of this no notice was ever since jane i don't know if they're going to dispute whether jane is a known creditor or not but they have the prenuptial agreements and it was in fact it was referred to in the two thousand and seven well that was prepared by floyd so they can hardly contend that they are not aware of and she actually runs when we filed her claim it was on july twenty second two thousand and nine the publication publication is erroneous the july fifteenth closing because it has to be not less than six months after the first publication first publication date january twenty first so six months i don't know if that makes any difference but it's a little bit awkward to be complaining about file using the public line on a publication with a publication of self does it give adequate time for creditors  entitled to an actual notice and i think the distinction there product earlier can be highlighted here and i want to cite the full citation from polly versus state of polly two thousand and eight first district case to highlight that distinction surprise that somebody might say well really it's cash that comes out of the marriage is personal property i've got a claim against that because it's aftercare property i understand you could say that no aware of what was going on and surely have no sort of found out they get out the with the time period or with that within which  it was not in fact at the time this dispute arose effectively saying even eighteen three as it exists today was applicable then you still would not have the mail know this because of the creditors relationship to the parties in the case the involvement the personal knowledge i've moved on to the issue with regards to discovery i just like there are prepared tracks a couple of points the basis of our objection was relevant see we're dealing with information that happened first of all when that scene was still alive with regards to farm income drive by that that's used according to the prenup to support the parties throughout their relationship and throughout their marriage is somehow converted to marital property the appellant can do that then find such authority and have it in my this is your it states she says exactly what you recognize your honor that there is a challenge here there is a question that intricate whether it can be modified by two thousand and seven well twenty six years after his interview during that twenty six years after they live as husband and wife together is an issue that we can see that jane has been prohibited from proceeding on those matters because of the fact that she  brought that's what the statute says i think there's ample information about whether paragraph four f makes earth famous under the est or not they were doing all kinds of stuff with regard to stuff that came under the burra they said both arms in june