breeze and he will listen to the tapes and help purchase the disposition so  document which mr franks quote characterized as clarification but actually modifies the terms of the properties on an agreement that the judgment incorporated language that states that there be a separate payment of six hundred  that in order to have to enter to provide her with the civil war that's what we're asking in our petition for the partition order and her ordering providing her with a six hundred twenty one dollars per month the council would argue to the trial court that you know the partition or is actually adding all this additional language because it's going to provide her with you know his tutor his his ninth year one benefits however often domestic relations order typically have lots of additional language that's not part of the practice on the partitioner is very similar to a cough i must relations order in that it's going to suit you forwarded to the administrator of the pension and it's points you provide for the payment formula incomplete and that comes back and that is a supplemental proceeding in the circuit court level but in the event that happens that that doesn't negate the agreement but then you had to go back and had them point and say well the railroad says they'll get six hundred twenty one dollars or they can only get it this way or whatever and them as a different that tier of mr frank's pension benefits that will in fact diminish his benefits the railroad retirement system is in my experience unique and it consists of two tiers one winning only judgment she gets six twenty one for my book as well as two things happen one she was married one for ten years and two she turned sixty five years of age and is that marriage she fears she could still become eligible second six twenty one and when she wants the second six twenty one is by a partition order who takes it out of his non tier one benefits this is here too but it's n the evidence the judge hartman heard at the trial after nonsense for the two of them to have agreed that he would pay her six hundred twenty one prong out of his defined benefit pension that was one hundred percent of the marital interest was four hundred twenty eight dollars six twenty one that they agreed  require that the judgement incorporating a marital settlement agreement can occur that doesn't just incorporate the marital settlement agreement but it changes the term to wh she has signed a waiver of appearance because the marital settlement of the man's going to be the judge that only it doesn't in its entirety it becomes part of the judge then and so now we have actually we have evidence that was and heard only it is without notice and i know that we've got to have one now we have to refigure other terms perhaps or maybe i'm going to get another bank car i'm going to get one of the motorcycles there are something to compensate for that i don't see anywhere or where any of that was explained or understood live and knowledge meant understanding by the the white that that that could happen and not coming to power and and the problem with  dressing that issue in the manner in which he posed it is exactly what justice schmidt raised which is the procedural context within which we are here today we are not here today because that was in a challenge to  dismiss was filed in the withdrew that they filed a second motion asking for modification another motion to dismiss in the withdraw it was there through the strike was when we filed not emotion to modify more vacate the judgment but the motion to enforce the judgment and that's the procedural context where the trial court found itself and where we are today there is no to dash fourteen no one motion to vacate that judgment r and looking at all the facts and circumstances i know what they agreed to they agreed she was going to get six twenty one from the divorce prosecute and she still will under the terms of the existing judgment without any modification without any force