he was here yesterday i but it's almost like you're arguing why bother you know there are these these balls up in the air with it is often the case but how do you offset the heroes which you say was almost imminent when you don't know what verses that mean we all i think we can take additional notice that the state can only give these i don't know a monthly or yearly or every six months or something estimates of what retirement would be if they continue working and what they tested in that type of thing and she did not present that either correct  connection the state suggested connection should be only if they have children that they have to cooperate about raising him and support  basically what you're saying is that it was an abuse of discretion not to take the reserved jurisdiction approach but that means this can go on for an indeterminate amount specified  period of time without any ultimate resolution or any ability to a just read what one's financial future is going to be especially if you're in one of these state or county you want the situation where while mr ross is receiving his pension but when the court looked at it he wasn't receiving it yet ok now he's receiving it years so is he entitled to one hundred percent of that even award your client a portion without knowing what all the offsets are going to be right or at least have some indication i mean i recognize and i think the court is no do we can take  i mean in cannes on how many years you're going to be there with your salary is trying to par age of retirement and of course your client could be fired tomorrow and exact but if of back and forth i mean mr pot but at least it in my review of the record or the briefs it says the current value form submitted by rachel indicated twenty six thousand one hundred  fifty distribution and when rachel gets her pension if ever that fifty fifty distribution would be fair you're under those circumstances that's your basic position  wasn't produced to make assumptions and it appears from that briefing that the court was pretty critical of rachel for not coming in with something or maybe even overly harsh but regardless it was mentioned many times and what is available if you were passed away and you know that amount would go to your heirs is there any indication as to what the mount monthly distribution and ship would be if your client were to retire in the next month or so assuming that she had vested you know what whatever percentage level there are any indication in the form as we all are leaving these matters pending for years and years rachel's only fifty five it may be another ten years before she retires and this is great at some point the courts like to have a cutoff and with children eighteen you know i'm also a college but the reserve jurisdiction approaches i understand it seems to be different than this continuing jurisdiction all the time in other  words there is some kind of allocation made and and correct me if i'm wrong because i'm having a little trouble grasping this to retain the jurisdiction is really only related to the pension issue is that right e but well i guess i guess with property because there is property and yet here it is you could award a different percentage with the understanding that if she's truly vested in he would be subject to the fifty percent because he's already receiving his yes to dorothy and she may or may not ever be subject to it if she continues to work and maybe ears it seems though that when just having used the word punishment that may be a little strong but it did seem that the court was irritated that rachel did not produce  any information regarding her potential pension do you know if the matter of money that you pay in to i am r f is invested automatically in other words she could take the entire side i mean something in the back of my mind tells me that you can just buy buy out you can take the home money you don't have to take it as a pension in other words was this a qualified pension plan that she was paying into unfortunately i'm not sure of that but don't you think that's important because if we're talking about pensions and then we're talking about this region reserve jurisdiction approach if it's not a pension then it seems to me that we're into maybe another field here are  purposes of this appeal that she had a pension the amount of which we were not sure about and that he had a pension the amount of which we're not sure about and she was going to get nine hundred some odd dollars but the court dividing the assets he just gave her whatever her pension was that we don't know yet and that seems to be discussed in paragraph twenty seven i mean he he eliminated the chance he considered the child support but i just i can't figure out how you can do that without knowing something that's my concern is the court clearly and twenty seven like dropping a subpoena i mean and the other thing is the nine hundred dollars command telephone was the court going to allow that to be paid to reach all night of the marriage the duration the marriage if you're talking about if she only information i mean do we remember when you get the same two years go by in the same problems and i think that at least was stated as a trial or was frustrated in it smith case says is that this is what i mean this is what we see all the time i mean that's exactly what the smith report says the party should be able benefit for failure to introduce evidence of traffic on the other hand i think that turner is counsel could have obtained the information if this was the critical issue i'm not sure the turners council can just sit on their hands and say well we're just waiting well at least in the record exhibit z there is some indication of what her i am are after tarmon current value was in quote thank you counsel