custody and property and everything else and now we're going to go off into contrary to quantum quantum early actions between our club parties to a divorce attorneys in somebody out there that has nothing to do with the court i mean you know i understand you correctly then you do concede that if we agreed with your contention on appeal that he would still have to go back and the trial court would have to exercise its discretion as to whether or not it was going to hav just for these kinds of proceedings it gives the court to this question if it's too complicated to turn the petitioner away but the petitioner should still be able to present that to take it because as complicated dissolution proceedings i'm sure are that a judge situated the most familiar with the proceedings the parties and all of the facts that have already come up in terms of custody and property disputes between the two parties and instead of asking them to take this matter up in a separate for a before a the trial court did not have a subject matter or stiction to do so would you agree with that statement or i would agree that that is what the trial court was grappling with i think the trial court did not understand why the already a judge that knows the facts and the parties are already present it makes more sense and it is more efficient and it is more sensible to at least permit the attorney for the answer in this case to bring those kinds of feet disputes before that same judge then they are behind the factors that the judge can look out to do you know grant with under their discretion to determine whether or not they're going to award those fees but here the petitioner wasn't even afforded that opportunity we weren't able to present th case because the trial court misinterpreted the statute and erroneous lee believe that she did not have the power to hear this and that is what we're seeking to remedy at this point degenerate is an injured party who is all these say that the trial court never said anything similar or substantially similar to even if i had the ability to decide whether or not this should be heard in divorce court i wouldn't do it now i don't have to tell her put that in the order we made we would not be standing here today because that is how it happened the trial court specific language was that not talking about what the language was in the talking about what the language was if it were contained in a transcript of the hearings that were involved with the first and second consideration carr i want to start off with something just heard about the order that's on appeal you know this is not in my estimation a stand issue it's not a subject matter jurisdiction issue this judge  behalf of their spouse clients petition the court for expert cos in the divorce case it doesn't work the other way because the statute doesn't say anything about a third party it's the statute talks about attorneys that  know picking up on your point about the implications of are you first seen here you know there's a lot of costs associated with divorce cases frayed there's people like this who bell you or get hired that means that the orders pacifically reads that as a matter of law an expert cannot petition for fees on your file in a way that is the part of the order that we have disputed and that is all that we are asking this court to consider as in the language of the statute that can be read to be that way present their case to the court and the court decides i don't want to hear this for these reasons as opposed to i can't hear this because of the statute and the language in the order clearly indicates that the court below believed she did