primary facets do not speed in isolation to one another for a moment together ultimately but want to be creating a legal way of which my client was not allowed to continue trial was withdrawn but we don't know by whom it was granted it was part of the trial the october date was stricken what it was strictly sure but we don't know who who withdrew my  we not take any absences in the record i can see you in your eye and i believe that would be appropriate but i believe that this record is sufficient to tell who or exactly what happened here mean you're putting words in the trial court's mouth we don't know what the trial court would have done you remember i notice i know that my client presented a request for a temporary lawyer in effect what the trial court did when it said you know i would consider these this order respectfully i don't think so my client was i'm a person she was on represented at that point she page ten fifty nine for the kind of record he admits there is gross salaries in excess of fourteen thousand dollars a month fourteen thousand three hundred forty three dollars fifty one cents a month serious claim also enough additionally the question i think that justice can ask you is where is the prejudice to your client now potential prejudice where's the printer's prejudice because she wasn't able to present first of all he claim was incredibly equitable such that victoria has not raised a single issue with the ultimate ruling simply because there is no reason to do so or she suffered no prejudice in the ultimate judgment and turn i'd like to begin where my  she was seeking a continuance because as she even stated in her motion she wasn't prepared she didn't believe she knew the law and she wanted time to get an attorney and in fact she specifically added in her motion that she wanted that motion to continue until the fee issue could be resolved and it was able to see that in fact she was able to perform while at trial she was able to advance her arguments and the motions in you know the cells which were quite detail to know which she filed sound for all at least five during the time she was representing herself were very detail cited case la all of those things demonstrated to the trial court that she was able to proceed that she was competent to proceed i would like to touch on my opponent's arguments with respect to the issue of prejudice my client was solely responsible for the mortgage he was solely responsible for any deficiency which resulted from them from any foreclosure on the mortgage so in this case the jury didn't suffer any price just because responsibly he for his failure to pay the salary each month and in addition there to the trial court that awarded her thirty five percent of his annual bonus as information and in this case not only did she receive fifty percent of her marital estate except for the dissipation claim that was found against her she received over forty eight thousand dollars in maintenance and child support in two thousand and thirteen and that year forward she's to receive forty five thousand five hundred dollars per year plus thirty five percent of my client's  think that's certainly an admirable result in this case based on his nap and calm and her needs as she stepped more of that trial with respect to due process violation first of all i think it's important that this court consider the fact that victoria never raised this issue at the trial court level she filed a motion for a new trial that raised over eleven different issues where she believes the trial court erred she did not raise that issue at that point in time nor did she ever file a motion to vacate the september twelfth order  leave to withdraw however based on the fact that there had been pending a motion to continue the trial court struck those dates and set to case for ninety nine days out in the future and during the twenty one days after her counsel was allowed an opportunity to withdraw she nothing happened in that case there was not a single order unturned or a motion heard and nothing took place will counsel argues that victoria was prior to this again having a pro se litigant proceed to trial by herself itself prejudicial lead against have to represent themselves and hearings are almost all the time and what we have to look for here is whether there was prejudice at the end of this trial which we believe there was not counsel also pointed out that there was great down here that he doesn't believe that was the case well as justice birkhead pointed out the motions this exactly said that there was a breakdown in communication and the failure to be paid i don't think that we can simply dismiss that to say of course there is no break to demonstrate that she had an inability to work with her three prior attorneys in this matter at least two of which will last a breakdown in communication when they sought to a draw in this manner so the fact that she was representing herself at trial was not as a result of the trial  of temper twelfth order but was a result of victoria's inability to work with someone to proceed to this case on her behalf and similarly as justice charges and pointed out the trial court did not say that she could not receive in term attorney fees on september twelfth that motion was withdrawn and not denied and that motion was withdrawn because the statutory construction of file one c one required that it be withdrawn because after time per attorney withdrew their work there was no current counsel to whom these could be awarded is of the utmost importance that we look at that definition because a careful reading of the statute says that an arm attorney's fees are defined as attorneys using process from time to time or cases handing in favor of the petitioning parties all that statute was an active one nine hundred seventy seven and has never been revised if there was any kind of a question about that certainly it would have been revised well counsel looks to early wind and tells this court that the policy considerations should dollars per hour at the time that awarded her fees for forty hours of work which she admitted in her petition that the time would be sufficient for her to prepare for a trial therefore that was a very astute pick and award and he had paid her interim attorney's fees on several occasions prior in that case it's also important to point out that really lines that you want to work to work these are that the litigant to adequately participate in the litigation victoria didn't adequately participate in the litigation and the record  references by the trial court finding that she off cross examination she was able to testify twice she made arguments both in opening arguments and closing arguments she was able to discuss the evidence that was entered in the case she had the opportunity to participate in this litigation she as i mentioned earlier she filed a very detailed very sustained motion ends with loss cited now on several occasions and therefore she had the opportunity to participate in this case and it's our position that even if the court were to consider an interim the petition the jury would not have been entitled to enter these at that point in time in the court would have had to consider the fact that she found no affidavit in support of her motion all of the cases cited petition nor were there to indicate that she was on able to pay the fees she was receiving maintenance from my client in nearly fifty percent of his monthly net income and above and beyond that she had failed cash many of the checks that he tendered her showing that she didn't need the money so when counsel says that she had no money with which to hire counsel that's simply not true she was receiving maintenance and she was she had received five thousand dollars from  these she received a sixty four hundred dollar tax refund in may of two thousand and twelve for which she never accountant and so she did have cash available to her she simply chose not to use that so while she continued coming back into court asking for my client to pay for the higher counsel for her she simply chose not to use the funds that hand for herself to retain counsel at that point in time trial court that she believed she had surgical procedure schedule however she didn't file a motion to continue at that time she was made aware that the trial would continue and absent such a motion this case it is akin to the drug which ca out of the first district where that money get time and time again disregarded the orders of the court did not the case to proceed and had many opportunities to hire counsel and simply sent people in to say i don't want this case to go to trial and the trial that she had her opportunities and properly denied the motion to continue which was filed in fact in mackey's six days before a trial was to proceed in this case her motion continues her the afternoon the trial was to commence there was nothing in her motion that indicated that this was a sudden onset illness or procedure and there was no evidence in support of her emotional kid including even after a day that where this case was set for trial three different times and where the supreme court rule nine twenty t seriously grave reason existed for a continuance well counsel seeks to pull at the heartstrings of this court including in her in her brief issues related to the breast surgery we have no idea what that was related to we have no evidence of that and the trial court was able to make the determination and this court can as well based on the record find that that was not ultimately the basis for her request for a continuance she simply did not want the keys to go forward she wanted my client to pay for an attorney and she refused to accept the fact that the trial court had denied this request on several occasions prior there too and wanted to make yet another last which effort to make sure that the trial court awarded her that opportunity big time the fact that  court should overturn the judgment of the trial court which was an attorney not by way of going to the use of discretion but after witnessing the ability of the affluent to proceed with a trial witnessing the credibility of her allegations reviewing the supporting documents and hearing all of the testimony there and witnessing her demeanor in each of those instances and based on that your honour's i don't believe that the question of prejudice has been resolved or even can be resolved and it's important that we look at the standard of review here being the abuse of discretion and i don't believe that we can find that no reasonable person would have she was not denied her due process none of the cases that were cited with respect to due process violation in supreme court rule thirteen to come close to the circumstances here and each of those cases the appellate courts found that there was error because the litigant was opportunity to seek counsel issues so chose and to file a feature feet petition as justice bearcat pointed out the trial court was willing in writing to hear that on an emergency basis yet she did not hire counsel and therefore she is not entitled to fees under discovery cutoff date still victoria was free at any point within those ninety nine days to file a motion to compel and she chose not to do so she chose in your position if she chose not to bring that motion again exactly she brought many other could review her motion however it was withdrawn and nothing indicated that it was withdrawn with prejudice so pursuant to the supreme court's role she had the right to bring that motion at any point in time it was not restricted from doing so not her attorneys motions is first all these things were withdrawn but then she just chose not to be there not to go forward with her motions is that the normal course of things were never puts a case on the call for a particular motion they don't appear in the motion stricken or withdrawn or show it is withdrawn first of all off given the fact that nothing was supposed precious or within those twenty one days i don't think that any of those things the asset side because he didn't pay the mortgage i believe every single one of them right and every single time she was told that if she hires counsel the titian might be reconsidered by the court it's sure news include many months but now how many times does it take before somebody gets the message you've got to hire counsel and counsel can petition the court for fees you write in your city and put somebody in that situation who feels it dead type of emotional  the benefit of both counsel as you noticed one of our chairs is is empty just to see you off it is this third member of the panel she was very unexpectedly called out of town for today but prior to our deliberations following your oral arguments she will listen to the tape which is prepared beach and everywhere argument and then we will have discussions and a disposition filed forthwith