in regard to this case it was a divorce that started it went on two years and two months and judge legality after hearing much evidence had to determine what the retirement distribution of linda with the wind is my client linda van hook there was a short period of time that she worked for a school district as a bus driver and she accumulated a very small amount of i m  fines but then she went to work for the state of illinois with the department of corrections and accumulated another retirement three serves in regard to the opinion it ended up being a very simple opinion that she wrote after having as i've said about nineteen months of trial on various petitions and i think of three days of trial but at that time on seed one fifty two it indicated that she has the retirements and it says that the respondent in the case which would be the appellee hired dr langford he did a they value of their retirement with the armor of the state of illinois and as of september tenth two thousand or september tenth two thousand and eight he came up that it had a value of two hundred fifty five thousand two hundred twenty one dollars my client at the time was in remission from cancer and she was asking the court to adopt the value which would be her cash in value at that time which was much the last of forty thousand one hundred fifty dollars in the decision in the opinion of the court she says the court is considered both positions and the health and age of the parties and will divide the pension equally by quadro and by killed or zero that is what she ordered both parties subsequent to that time filed motions to reconsider a motion to reconsider my client complained that she wanted the court not to start on the date of the marriage and go to the date of the divorce which was february tenth of two thousand and ten she wanted the court to go to the separation because that the lengthy inus of the proceedings which she blamed on the responding ernie mr lay first filed a motion to reconsider this is seek to rule five and he said that he disagreed with that and he has the court to do it the date of the divorce in february there were other issues involved in both those post trial motions and all the mentally the parties came to an agreement where both of those motions would be withdrawn concerning the pension that order was entered by agreement after we had a court we had several hearings and we finally came to an agreement on it so in october twenty seventh two thousand and ten that order was entered so this case and what i'm asking you to consider is what i believe to be the the situation of judge mccarthy who was thrown into this later because judge legalities decision very simple i'm dividing it equally she didn't give any further instructions so judge mccartney took over from her head the case and it my opinion struggled with the decision originally found and followed the position of  by determining that we're only going to give fifty percent of the time from the date of the marriage to the date of the divorce as a quote or ever been out or in this case now the order of but her feeling was that the respondent was receiving the benefit and he should i was ordered to do the judgment but i don't think anybody was ordered to do the quoter zero per se so we assumed at that time that  mister ernest van hook would enter the judgment because it was in his best interest to do so that's the best answer i can give you and i wish it would have been in or back then in regard to in that case the court specifically said about a pension jurisdiction is continued in retained to apportion between the parties according to the marital share and supervised payments of the pension and here's the key words that we're asking this court to consider if as and when it becomes vested in and payable to thomas thomas shall promptly notify the court and virginia and since the retirement date is known so that the court can appropriately deal with the pension and page six hundred thirty two of two twenty one illinois decisions in that same ruling the court went on and talked about how there's t jurisdiction and there's two formulas suggested of course one is you take the pension amount at the time that the date of the retirement divide that by the total number of years that the pension times the number of years of the marriage and divide by two our position and why we're here on this appeal is that's not what judge legality ordered the second way to do it is to say we're going to look at this when they retire if as and when they retire and judge the gals he did not say that so we argue before judge macartney that four where our position was that the amount of monthly pension accumulated during the marriage for that part from the marriage to the date of the divorce would have been total pension amount of twelve hundred twenty six dollars and twenty five cents payable as of may first two thousand and ten that's as close as we could get the divorce took place in february but that was the figure we are just the court to accept this with fifty five thousand in the forty thousand she said i'm not accepting either one our position is she said i'm cashing it out i'm not reserving jurisdiction if it has and when i'm not doing the formula is an advocate for his client did what i'm arguing to the court would be the formula where he took the amount she read the total amount when she retired and took divided by the number of years multiplied times two and he came up with a figure our figure for his half is six hundred thirteen dollars and thirteen cents per month mr li first figure is eleven hundred sixty dollars and five cents hence this is a four five hundred forty seven dollars per month difference in the positions that the party submitted to the trial court so this is where the argument in this case is and i i guess it's a matter of you know what was judge legalities true intent our position and why we're here is that it was not her intent to do a formula it was not her intent to say we're going to divide this if as and when she didn't have th all she said and by and motions were filed to determine the date and that motion ultimately was made a marriage today to divorce is there any indication on the record that at that time of quarter two thousand  are formula is what's put out by the state retirement system saying if she retired on may first two thousand and ten this is she would have received twelve hundred twenty six dollars and twenty five cents that's what we asked the court to adopt and judge mccartney initially adopted that would have been the amount that these the state retirement system calculated had she retired at that time of what we have as work for six more years just as turner after that and then because of the additional time the additional pay increases and dish that she hit the twenty years that enhanced it to another house so the new each preserved to the  to have temper well go along the lines of what you're suggesting here that have a status of those all those years ago so that you wouldn't have got the piss on having to make the respondent to want to do that and she shouldn't lose what the judge has written in her opinion because of the time delay i mean it she shouldn't be punished because of the time delay it could have been done then it can be done  both parties that this would be in her findings in her opinion that both parties continued to work earning was on social security it says she was in remission most continuing to undergo treatment he was sixty five she was fifty nine they're both working they're both self supporting so i take it from there finding just a snack that she dissipated didn't work and there was nothing i mean my client was working at the it would have been in everybody's best interest to have a twelve year old injured back in ten thousand i think obviously based on the questions of the court it probably would have been linda's best interest more so than her niece to have  essentially look we have as mr temper what we will indicated we had multiple hearings in this case just look as he was presented with the report of dr  method which in she chose not to basically women ernie's benefit to contributions when they had made and she was make she made that argument based on her health or that her retirement was pending or imminent so what judge the gal stupid rule was essentially that the retirement benefits would be read would be divided equally the problem is is that back then she didn't really choose a method of our eighty days and again it would have been obviously beneficial and perhaps we wouldn't been here today had either party presented the quote or at that time the argument could be made and maybe this would have been resolved but nonetheless here we are  method would have been appropriate as opposed to reserve jurisdiction but i'm not too sure that's what that means ok i mean again with all due respect to dress like ascii in the language that she chose that the value of linda's pension benefits was faced upon retirement at age sixty and again there was no evidence that she was retiring at that one time i truly believe us and i think judge mccartney understood the ambiguity of it if you will when he's struggled with how to approach this what method should he adopt and michelin he got to the method manipulating the party's finances not paying what he was  the twenty in two thousand and eighteen and we have jurisdiction to consider that february twentieth two thousand and eighteen or when there was a notice of appeal filed in december don't we doesn't the trial court l then you have a notice of appeal and then you have a subsequent motion to reconsider and i don't believe that there's even a quarter for that and then you have a notice of appeal with regard just basically use that as an offset against what linda would oh ernie by virtue of the retirement right essentially with regard to the credit card debt he did the same thing but he if you found out linda was entitle to a twenty thousand dollar offset against any if you will reroute payments that she would go early by virtue of the retirement benefits and that's the way he handled that that's what will dollars per month that and then the second on is fifty percent in the formula that's the one that of course you're arguing for as per well it seems to mean that s e r s a s contemplate that that first line could have been filled out for what councils argue from that that is so much per month and i got a dollar figure based upon date of  mccarthy did what he thought was right with regard to that and i don't know if you have any questions with regard to the second argument that mr taylor walk is making with regard to the rule show  seven six seventeen judge mccarthy ordered three things number one he adopted our position that they as justice turner said that we're going to look at data marriage to date of february tenth two thousand and seventy but we only had the may figure that's all we could yes number two they ernie was found because of manipulation and so forth  didn't pay bills that there was a credit card that my client had on her predecessor record of fifteen thousand dollars and he was supposed to pay it he never paid so she would be allowed an offset of that fifteen thousand dollars chase bill and she could pay it in other words instead of paying him the retirement she could clear her credit by paying it number three that she had to pay a mortgage payment on a house that he was awarded because the bank was suing motion was filed by mr dooley first then on eleven twenty that was her and when that was heard on eleven twenty he indicated that the twenty thousand would stand he adopted mr lee first require house that we take the what i'm going to call the reserve jurisdiction formula we take the amount at the end when she retired and he did it he did it by looking at it when i ask the diski and saying well he should get the benefit of the additional time because he didn't get money well my argument to that is she didn't get the money either she still work and paying bills so that happened on eleven twenty the at the very end of that hearing he said i want to have a telephone call because we were still debating this credit card and the credit card issue mister being hooked was saying that's a debt that's no longer enforceable it's a limb unaided which he ultimately proved by getting information and got it to judge mccartney so judge mccartin wipe that out he said i'm not going to allow the offset for the credit card because thirty days so that's the reason that i filed that appeal but then when i filed the new appeal when the last order came out that rule i then asked to consolidate and they've been consolidated they only last thing i would like to say is you asked you well why wouldn't why wouldn't we have a cutoff date back when judge like ascii had i think when my client was satisfied at the very end because of the motions to reconsider that it would be from the date of the marriage to the date of the judgment her argument was it should go dave separation because this thing drug out and the bottom line is she felt that it was it was a situation that had been set a