consider those factors we believe the case law supports a different approach than that taken by judge meyer the shaver case for instance says that the court looks to beyond the language of the decree to the intent of the parties which is they did not relevant relevant here we've started claim five all right before we get too far down the line can i ask what do you want this court to know went to court to determine not the bankruptcy court erred in determining of the confusion and quite honestly by the confusion what happened molo because it seemed like the parties after the st hearing on this decided just to give the whole whole quite the whole entirety of to the bankruptcy judge for decision are we reading that record correctly all are we putting too much into that that that is the that is correct for the for that stage of the motion persone judge really was to let the judge determine based on the the order of th that we left it to the to the big to court to determine based on the a court order let me let me follow up breakers question and ask that they get this distinction if you are you suggesting that he area because there were disputed issues of material fact that required a trial one or number two are you saying look we know he had to resolve these questions we submitted it to him on this record and asked him to resolve those disputed questions and to come to an answer we just think he came to the wrong answer this is the right answer you know you when you see the distinction there ar suggesting something doesn't was inappropriate because there were disputed issues and we still remanded back for a trial are you saying we stipulated this is the universe of documents to review your honor you figure out whatever they say they say and then you enter ruling that you think appropriate and we're just going to see if it's clearly erroneous if there's no evidence to support it or if the law is contrary to what you suggested in tell me which one you are proceeding  the wanted to say i wanted to congratulate both of you for doing that i mean did you agree to what the facts were you asked for a decision i think that's very professional anyway that's not a question just a comment please go and we've we've frozen once again i'm afraid so i would submit for the question that ok any more questions from the i don't think i haven't got going i'm sorry go ahead i don't think i have anything further think the it's pretty common practice to raise holy hell in your divorce case but when it is going to happen in bankruptcy later and my st boss had me work on domestic relations it has been three miserable years and so i saw that process play out over and over with course attorney's got me below are zealous so i do appreciate that the law is developed in bankruptcy court as i believe appropriately to prevent that from happening and i think it has worked pretty well and i hope our statutes are designed to give the court the right to declare what is that the message or obligation and or the bankruptcy judge just to look at that and decide if they're not information for me to make that determination i've been allowed to make by congress and i believe that there are two types in this case took the evidence that we submitted and decided after weighing the factors appropriately yes this qualified as a domestic part of the case and that attorney fees should be part of that believe that as the judge ferrous pointed out it i think it was very professional on both parts to the do it that way we don't need to retry the divorce again it was that i got the standard review doesn't it i think it does and i think position and that's all that we wanted to clarify is that you both agreed to submit the universe of documents to the court and then said if there is conflict or if there's a discrepancy here you resolve it you apply the law and you come to an answer and then we'll take that decision up as if a trial had been conducted in now was review of that evidence three ripped resolution of disputed fact question by the bankruptcy court not summary judgment based upon certain documents if you find disputed facts then your honor we have to go back and try it again you see my distinction there yes i did and i agree that's what we did and i think judge miers did a good job of being very thorough and determining what happened and so it's pretty simple to me as you can see from the record some what was put there the judge at the divorce court i felt that mr abbas had been abusive to his life a separate category i think it's just the practice of the divorce court judges to decide the attorney fees in a separate way like that but i think that the evidence that the court had law i just i don't think it takes much more time and i think we have to pretty well i think it's there for you but i just again i believe that this is the kind of case that we use to get a lot more i don't want to see more of these kind of cases i think  n i think is if you read the way john myers in human rights is that because they were in there this is he thinks this is obviously in the nature of support and that's where that's where i think we differ the judge put it in the separate section he mention k and i think further no thank you all right well thank you both for your very good reefing argument and for your professionalism throughout i think that having read the state courts findings all three of us would want to tip our hats to all the domestic relations