performing the job or he is not suitable for the job ahead i mean it is just it may be that this works out in a small town with a lot of stress and a lot of pressure lot less pressure on him but he lost  bench memorandum he points out that the defendant was guilty of bad effect and that he shouldn't be allowed to ask for relief from his child support not just not up to the job so anyway we have this series of events where the defendant has lost his job and he seeks another job and he is able to find a temporary position and loses that in the goes and he finds another job for the upper police department which is a small community makes a lot less money and he applies to any any presents his motion petition to modify support would be denied because it was his fallen teary action of resigning that that was the immediate cause of his loss of that employment however the evidence in this case shows that he had a discussion about his continued employment with the chief of police so he's actually a better better off than he was when the court made the original decision not to modify his obligation right that's following what judicata because in armstrong where the court found that the defendant had quit his previous employment in bad faith that he was barred from  council all were based upon a case where two cases where were at faith was the kingpin of the of the courts prior denial or subsequent denial of the modification requests of love the guy is ordered by the court to go look for a job and he goes and finds a job and he comes before the court again and now he's dead of making zero he's will be able because of this supposedly bad faith that nonexistent bad faith finding in the in the first proceeding to modify support makes sense that he's barred it goes back to court and now before or is a situation where what thirty two thousand down to zero so what now the court might say yeah that's a substantial changes bad faith blocks him from ever asking for relief in the future and in a search diligently through counsel's third issue  that as to what circumstances somebody might be able to present that they are entitled to some kind of relief and and it's just it's not there it's just not there there's no criteria  got a broken bone played in the driveway with my kids which is precisely what happened so all because meanness and i said forget it we're not entitle anything to court with this is up for the court so he bit went back to work last my support on what i make and this is what he did in in and this is the in the adverse decision to that petition is what we're here but about today so i'm i would like to to decide one thing and that is that i think it is the law that w the benchmark of the test of that decision is made good faith is whether the change was prompted by a desire to evade financial responsibilities or support of children or otherwise jeopardize their interest and that is the one nine hundred ninety five decision in rivera to warn and and that is exactly what we have we have circumstances i mean that guy just was not suited for the well for the job he had quit the job because he did one messed up after the next and ended up having a faceoff with the chief of police and to chief he said you're going to get fired or you want to it resigned under fire and so now we're seeking to have his child support reset and i and him was very put off by counsel's previous consequences term as it relates to this case in august two thousand and fifteen the trial court denied mr corridors first petition to modify and maintenance of child support and that was really obviously that mr  deems unfavorable to him mr carter however chose not to appeal and we all know that if a party for whatever reason chooses not to appeal and favorable ruling that parties then bound by the ruling later cannot attempt to really litigate the matter no matter how unfair it thinks it is in this case in may of two thousand and sixteen when the court heard mr corner second titian that he filed in knows was the ruling where the trial court held that mr carnivals loss of income because of his resignation from the decatur police department was not fortuitous or rather the result of his own his own deliberate conduct knowing suggest that all three elements exist here and that this is a matter of race to cut mr quarter generally denies the characterization that he's trying to relive again the first petition for modification of make and child support but the court will look at its throughout the whole dispute this whole process if you look at a second petition to modify which was one filed in november of fifteen and look at paragraph two  alleges that his income is substantially different than it was when he was formerly employed as a police officer and then i know the court has read the briefs and hope you've noted that eight out of the nine pages in the statement of facts are dedicated to complaining about the trial court proceedings in august of two thousand and fifteen in the two thousand and fifteen order then if you look at the argument there appears to be thirty one separate paragraphs nineteen of those paragraphs that appear to be exclusively focused on the august two thousand and fifteen proceedings or the august two thousand and fifteen order and that's just paragraphs that are exclusively devoted to the august two thousand fifteen proceeding there are other paragraphs words touched upon if you look at the likely first page of the brief nature of the action here's what the brief says this is a here made to show explain or demonstrate how there was a substantial material change of circumstances after august two thousand and fifteen that would justify a reduction so kill rate with mr katter that there's really no never back into or get tough i know i do not if you look at armstrong i think it's one of the last paragraphs the court says well future adjustments  support are not precluded under these circumstances they cannot automatically be based upon a reduction in said david's papa john's pizza salary what happened in armstrong is that mr armstrong had a job at papa john's he was making ninety thousand dollars a year he quit when he got another job was making sixty thousand dollars a year the court denied his first petition unmodified support then a some time goes by and he then gets in voluntarily terminated and by and by a second petition by the time of the hearing of the second petition is making sixty six thousand dollars and the trial court denied that second petition of attempting to relive the gate that the matter the denial of the first petition and i agree with justice kerner that if for example mr corner gets hurt so that he can no longer perform the duties of a police would have to fall within the established established crammers for example the change of employment has to be made in good faith can't be motivated by a desire to abate financial responsibilities it can't be  or that change has to be fortuitous it can't be a result of his deliberate conduct but yes i disagree with mr frank carter that he's you can't ever come back and ask for a modification i think that's clear and armstrong says answered your question what's going up what's going on here is that mr connor is using the wrong benchmark and the issue want to petition for modification of support is whether there's been a material substantial change in circumstances of the party since previous work mr congress approaches the previous order is the original order from november of two thousand and fourteen but that's not the previous order the previous is the denial of the first petition to modify child support in august two thousand fifteen that's the previous order of the cases talk about what coun is doing is he's comparing november of two thousand and fourteen with may of two thousand and sixteen he ought to be comparing august two thousand and fifty with may of two thousand and six and the court has corrected that in august of two thousand fifteen after the hearing of this first petition mr carver's income was zero and at the hearing on the second petition to modify his income i believe it was thirty seven thousand dollars to thirty two but he substantially improved his circumstances and it's clear that there was not a material substantial adverse change of circumstances we we of course believe that the two thousand and four fourth district case of armstrong is dispositive of this deal and i know the scores for milieu are with armstrong and so i just want to get just a couple comments on that case mr carver here is arguing that armstrong is distinguishable because armstrong found a father's decision to quit papa john's pizza and go to pizza jia was in bad faith then he's trying to argue that in this case there was never a finding of bad faith so armstrong must not apply but mr coroner is missing the point the point in armstrong is not some issue about bad faith when armstrong is it when you're first petition is denied you cannot base your second petition on the fact that you used to make ninety thousand dollars papa johns and now you only make sixty six thousand dollars a quality dining the proper benchmark is to sixty thousand dollars that you were making at p jia at the last hearing where your first petition was nine and then armstrong they had a situation where after the first petition was denied he was making sixty thousand dollars at the hearing on the second petition he was making sixty six thousand  a same fact pattern we have here but it's it's the same fact pattern on steroids here mr carter's income was zero at the at the end of the first petition for modification and at the hearing on the second petition here with respect to modification of the support entitle me to it in the race the race judicata aspect of this it doesn't matter whether the result is harsh and i know sometimes has a court it may be unpleasant to affirm something that you might consider to be harsh but that's the law but as a practical matter how is it quite a well what the trial court did here is actually fashion a remedy for him that allowed his option on average yes yes and that was actually a creative way to do it it was a way that we believe is justified by the law and allowed him  to to live and maintain himself and pay at least something and with respect to this harshness argument the other thing i would tell you is that  counsel did not touch on the appeal with respect to the the prospective attorney fees so if i may just just briefly i first like to apologize for something in my brief i indicated on page thirty two that mr carter was present at the june twenty first two thousand and sixteen hearing and in preparing for this argument today i realized he was not present so i apologize for that but with that said however there was no objection to the amount of the fees and the court had before it and considered evidence of the financial resources of both parties and as this court knows the law for the trial court wide discretion in this area and we believe that t barley and you've been a year a year of no child support and no maintenance which deprived my client of more than twenty three thousand dollars in support there was a fifteen hundred dollar garnishment that we have tamed and a three hundred dollars payment shortly before the hearing but other than that there was nothing even though he had the resources to do something and that's evidenced by finding of contempt you might have seen that in the may sixth two thousand and sixteen order of the one this being appealed the trial court referred to the financial circumstances of my client the children is dire we believe that it was mr carter's conduct that created my client's inability to pay then the court heard evidence about a ten thousand dollars bank accounts of the original judgment require that his money be affidavit the day of trial the statement of position on the day of trial and in his final arguments two days later then he filed a post trial motion after the original trial he never raised the fact that he didn't have this money then the court heard evidence of mr corridors failure to divide the navy federal credit that was the irene that was thirty one thousand dollars he received the first sixty five hundred dollars they were either bounce that would have been twelve thousand dollars  client could have used help pay for her field and the evidence was that all he had to do is sign a couple pieces of paper on a letter of direction and send it to the credit union and over a year and a half he never did so it would have helped that he just complied with the order and that might have made a difference and would have been funds that my client could've used to help pay for her appeal and it would have also generated eight hundred nineteen thousand dollars to him that he could it so the truth of the matter with respect to the fees is that the court heard the evidence had evidence before it has a wide discretion and exercise that discretion with the evidence before  of the matter is is that mr carter's actions or inactions drove my client into effect of poverty and he had assets available to him then we also cited  caused the need for the proceedings in the first place as i see my time is not up but i don't know if it has any questions but if not we would he would simply ask the court to uphold the trial court's discretion in sure my client has problems financial problems also if you look at their site resuscitation actually see that my