however participate in our discussions in our deliberations and she will be listening she's the oral argument is it is being recorded so it's important very important today that you make sure that you're heard by the microphone adjusted to how you are comfortable so that she can hear everything there we're talking about here today all right so if we're ready then mr williamson you may proce and it was to be paid into those five hundred and twenty nine dollars counts and there probably should have been three of them or maybe that was just one that was going to be divided three ways and i don't know the details of that and i don't think the record tells me so it's not really a support payment at the point of the judgment for dissolution well i understand that but they agreed to settle this debt and we don't know from this record either of what that debt is and i guess it's not critical right now other than there's some question about that one was employed when the other one wasn't employed  one the other was employed and you know there were monies taken from somewhere to pay bills and maybe this is just to pay back those bills be that as it may it is not can't disregard all right but college then according to the new we're a statutory authority you know when i st started there was no station and how much money it could be spent for college we now have a reasonable limitation and is what the cost of in state residency for the university of illinois would be sure we know that number one that would be less than if you were out of state i mean that's one of the reasons it's time we also know that this child was going to go to brandeis but then didn't do that either because of expense we don't know exactly why but she didn't do it now there in colorado we don't know if that is in state have been ordered by the trial court do not cover the total to wish and for this child to attend whatever she's attending at this time and so if they are if she does have some resources she would have to use those sure so why should they be figured into the distribution of the parents at this point in time or your honor st five for two need each control th client stopped paying for whatever reason when the bankruptcy i suppose was files and i was still a little concerned about how a banker sees family the six figure income but be that as it may work he files for bankruptcy  future he has three children that are going to school and they have teachers agreement to fund these accounts for so i don't understand what the problem is here in that was not properly or wasn't as funded as expected at the time this started winter as it was a week or so so he went to school why should money be taken out of that account to but if if we go back to your argument if he is to use were refused to be allowed to use his contributions and toward he is payment for his part of the obligation that's essential here eat your client tried at least twice before to modify this it will call and truly a modification he tried to modify the agreement th there is no fraud that has been alleged there's no misrepresentation and that would be the basis of a modification of america certainly agreement and then we had the bankruptcy that might have been refocused the attention as you  doing today that this really is a support obligations well now can i can i modify my support obligation once again to drop words that now i mean what is there different did i mean i don't understand what's different in the  application from the st to the whole purpose is to modify that responsibility so again he should never so i think have some want to understand we have to live with those orders and i don't disagree that he said we're here and we have to live with it and so if i'm living within the confines of what the statutes require us to do he's contributing post judgment to a five hundred and twenty nine dollars plan involuntary or voluntarily and that has to be applied to his contribution it has to it's not discretion and that's i mean that's the crux of all this because if i for two doesn't exist sure there are secondary myths about whether or not the cork basing this purely on income is is is a rational within the confines of the evidence that was put forth whether or not that was an appropriate be affirmative obligation to contribute to his three children college education in the higher education sector and we know under the case and read american honing their language which basically says the party shall pay for their children's education based upon the respect and abilities we know that create an affirmative obligation in both of these parties but then comes the bankruptcy action and your client just something that creates somewhat of an ambiguity and that is this is now what was it called a domestic support obligation or something like that yesterday in order to make it not just chargeable correct means that probably was the goal but it it looks like it changes the the the animal so the speed it doesn't change the animal respect i respectfully mean because the case is and understand and want to get  judgement it self that it wasn't their intent that this would be his college after fusion because as you pointed out or your honor the higher education section makes no mention of the five hundred and nine plans whatsoever the common law rhetoric the parties on throughout the nation refer to a spreadsheet that was created in entering into the rear of the sun in agreement and it shows that much of that seventy three thousand three hundred and one dollars forty four cents was repayment for funds withdrawn from what the spreadsheet calls a college town however it might try a step position transcript there in the supplemental record starts on page twenty nine the testimony i'm  the state which then needed to be paid back she also explains that she always thought that bills non parallel securities would be used for her children's college education she refers to it even in the deposition and it was something that she was hoping to rely on to pay for the children's college education it makes sense that the parties to read that mr will hence it would reimburse happen that and instead of paying it directly to her she just wanted to go council has talked about these funds i don't believe so i know the security is there and there were other amounts of the securities but this was money that had already been used rather marriage and was being paid back the nd was the affirmative obligation that you agreed to to contribute to his children's college education however on top of that the fourteen thousand four hundred dollars per year ordered that the papal towards modify to increase apartness child support obligations even though they were in bankruptcy because the bankruptcy actually put the painter in a better position and because think about it it makes sense if you file for colorado he he did not require the parties to pay more than what is required under one dollar law for in state tuition believe really couldn't tell who correct but he also considered the bankruptcy plan in detail then because of other proceedings there was a modification of support where there was a finding that people were paid one thousand seven hundred and ninety dollars sense the judge said i'm crediting that towards the st year college and then  going to be in a better position to pay them and they're right because he's not going to have all this debt hanging over his head and the bankruptcy plan will be done which under the bankruptcy plan b payment towards all the creditor all the creditors which there was employment that he can pay anything from her which might require additional modifications but if this point he is employed correct correct and as he stated if there in time nothing's changed and that would be narrow the issues for purposes of the court and if there is a section i mean all of these agreements take on different or all of these forms rather take on different perspective based upon the circuit yury and things like that if there is a section is represented by counsel that says these are agreements that these are acknowledgements or agreements that i exact if if he is agreeing in that section that narrow that issue didn't know because we agreed to and i'm going to defer the nine thousand six hundred dollars which is what counsel just said they just did a little bit more are for it which was that he was somehow borrowing from his ex wife to pay in the future while what's funny about that situation is that all goes back to the judgment for dissolution where he acknowledged that he would make contributions to the cation of the children and he would make that does not