what were the parties reached an agreement and the judgment of dissolution of marriage was interviewed in two thousand  the judgment itself reflected that hershey air his pension was going to be reduced by that twenty five thousand dollars the parties finally agree after debt reduction the amount she would actually receive was sixteen thousand six hundred sixteen thousand three hundred thirty seven dollars and wast of living increases no you'll increases and for that reason it is our position that sixteen thousand people is in here sixty thousand three thirty seven point twenty big seven dollars he received some credits for child support in the light and ended up paying it while some of the four thousand one hundred some odd all that was part because of the figure that was redeployment between parties at that point and then just slightly over a thousand dollars a month that she was receiving i think that's gone up to about eleven hundred right now right but when you look at that first school go back in two thousand and three or whenever well yeah two thousand and three that figure sixteen thousand and three seventy seven was her share when i'm certainly i presume fifty percent percentage he period of for the period of time during the marriage the pension it's monies paid into the servers told x active x turned out to be sixteen thousand dollars and change plus the twenty five thousand dollars  and for that i get a pension whenever i decide to retire right the amount of money i will yet if i live long it's going to be more than i've so if the sixty thousand dollar figure is a gross amount less the twenty five thousand that was credited back to the  facts here the party's judgment of dissolution of marriage to center in two thousand and two in two thousand and three august of two thousand three hundred americans settlement agreement and that was t years the legislature had caught up with the court's decisions and you will vote for us two years later not for us two years later in out with a monthly one thousand some benefit and that continue and did not terminate until upon the death of either participant mr fitzgerald or the asking the court to terminate the agreed order prequel overwater that had been submitted in two thousand and nine that is why we are here because he's still trying that in his reply or say anything about that so that i i'll move on i think we've got just two points from a the next point is whether judge bachman erred in the night his i think it was his second amended petition to terminate the two thousand and nine agreed will throw water and as i have argued in my preferred i'm arguing today the judge was very proper in his analysis it's a no vote analysis by you all and the question this whether the marital settlement agreement of the parties is ambiguous or not as to have enough apparently because she received the title to the marital home and instead of her getting off saturday or him getting off set a property or some cash or something for that one half interest of twenty five thousand dollars that was handled in the retirement paragraph as he will get a credit against her one half share his fre spend a little bit of time on this was you can see through our agree there's an issue as to whether or not mr fitzgerald ever received that twenty five thousand dollars and i urge you to look at the exhibit folder because it has in there judge bachmann said i'm tired of you know this going back and forth about who received what from s i want you to both show up with a printout from service of all that each of your clients have received and so we showed up and that stipulated into evidence at that march hearing on his second amendment motion determine well go and it shows that from february two thousand and seven through summer of two thousand and nothing mr fitzgerald received his total and the calculation that he received the twenty five thousand dollars is almost two years worth of payments and him seeing all of it which was about a thousand dollars a month division of his retirement check the monthly check didn't start until two years after retir ambiguity and what the parties intended and whether the two thousand and nine children should be terminated and the analysis was the appropriate one he looked at the entire noted you know this is basically dividing fifty fifty and then you look at section two point five which is the section where we specifically talk about the retirement interest and in section two point five we've got a number of census mr fitzgerald's entire argument since two thousand and ten has been a fourth or fifth sentence that paragraph but you always have to read a document in aha we have the number of months that we use for the numerator in the coverage for formula and of course it is not minator will be determined when he retires so we know how many years his entire check that first twenty some months from february two thousand and seven through july two thousand why share those retirement funds w parties agree that as a aug seventh two thousand and three now if all she was ever entitle to receive ever ever ever was the sixteen thousand you wouldn't need that he never took a lump sum retirement his attorney recognizing that this one was not appropriate or not applicable in two thousand and seven after his client retired gave notice you know it's time to get some months this problem is in paragraph three d where it says payments to the alternate pay into this section shall terminate upon the death of the member or the death of the alternat sentences are the agreement shall terminate after he gets after she gets him some distant future here a total of sixteen thousand  to the bar should have gotten on them sooner and said ok we have a problem here because it it was darned if you do darned if you don't because there was put a dollar amount in or put  notice of it before anything was done but never came to pass he took the monthly annuity and so her share is still one half share except for that all she was entitled to is sixteen thousand dollars why didn't she take the first four payments this first four payments for each over four thousand dollars from service this first four monthly payment and then he attorneys yes this matters been going on since two thousand t m on this issue my client she remarried she has two younger children in the home she has or one thousand some dollars from her if she has a six hundred and twenty dollar s s i payment for her young son and she sometimes gets child support where she's got over almost five thousand dollars a month so i thought the financial circumstances warranted or contributions portray attorneys thank you very much i see my pipes up  it's coming out of her equity in the house well what was i have to do with i mean that wasn't even in dispute and it's not outside the record is it if it was a boeing it's been decided and you're not here appealing it what are you asking for that to you know what i'm saying is all he knows sixteen bring them here yes and he's paid according to the records at this