and may please the court i'd like to start off with a little policy statement concerning the public policy in place concerning  the issue of child support as the court is aware it is the public policy of the state of illinois to insure the well for of children and often times if not most of the time  as parents patria behalf of children and everyone and i think the law is well settled in this area that child support may never be waived by the judges give an explanation as to the reasons why there's a deviation from the guidelines whether it's it's above or below the guidelines in this particular case we have the issue of the retroactivity of child support we have a agreement of the parties that was adopted by the court concerning this very issue the agreement in effect provided very clearly that and the subject the issue would be submitted to the court for determination of child support and the fact is what i just could not agree and they could not agree if the parties could not agree  so the question then the begs the answer is what is the meaning what is the status of that child support that terminate it off since  terminated i should say that ended in its present form in the form that existed then as of march first two thousand and five was it a reservation of child support or was it that child support can never be this extinguished the obligation for child support can never be extinguished absent certain where the child support was was terminated and they could anyway on march first two thousand and five so if in fact this was a modification of child support then the law requires that before it can become retroactive and this is the issue in this case may the child support be retroactive to a point in time we argue that in effect the agreement of the parties was a self executing agreement which provided the child support would continue and resist provisions  any agreement and child support would continue but the amount would be set by the court absent the parties agreement as to amount only there was never any agreement by the parents or one could if even if that agreement could be structured that number one this was a custody determination and overall number two that it was a reservation of custody of sorry if for support and and there therefore concerning child support and i believe that this issue before the court is probably the most important issue rather than the two fourteen zero one petition i think the other issues are rather simple i think they're rather apparent from the arguments that before retroactivity can be made to the point in time where that where that where the child support obligation could be either modified or extended or renewed and i think that that it's clear from the case law that we've submitted that if one had if an obligation or if a child support outlook or has  notice that that the obligation is going to continue and that there will be an obligation for that he's liable for or she is liable for child support fattest sufficient and retroactivity should be permitted to the date of notice and i think our cases support that although the facts may vary in sirte and in the circumstances i believe that's clear and that's really the mandate that needs to be established clearly for the for the sake of children whose support is really their right and not the right of the litigants and they said that i'm going to jump to the two fourteen olympics that we've got a situation where  mandated that husband provide to her all of the financial documents necessary to do that computation he hadn't done that yes that's true and then she was true that petition gotz korat she would do that petition and and and at one point or she would do it after was dismissed on a motion to six one five motion and then refile and then the husband filed another motion and that was the before judge  this the two fourteen i want petition on the other hand was a it was a petition that was based on fraud was based on accounting seeking certain relief other than other than enforcement of an existing court fourteen zero one petition she had constantly sought to and force her right to receive all these all these all that information she subsequently discovered in two thousand and five you're ri it was agreed by the parties that the children should receive seventeen thousand dollars in child support so all these horrendous crimes that these kids theoretically was if you see really a billionaire or a multi multimillionaire read that the children are deserving not of thirty percent of that which under the initial divorce would seem to be true but rather seventeen thousand dollars the children receive seventeen thousand dollars in child support somewhat later in time from judge brewer that was predicated on the children's needs and the the lifestyle they would have enjoyed had the i was a bit more then the child support it was in fact a payment for the waiver of the late nights five years later it was in fact for the maintenance of the spouse which had a can common and child support attached to it and so the wife gave up all of that property with the exception of a residence and some very small retirement her husband's business and for husband's retirement plan and for the for the consideration that during that five year period the husband would pay that on allocated maintenance and child support in a fashion that she expected would exceed the i forgot what it was now fifteen thousand or whatever it was for about the first hundred thousand nothing the second hundred thousand right thirty percent above and still think they negotiated this complex contract for that very reason had had someone simply said look you're entitled to one hundred thousand dollars or fifteen thousand dollars a month or whatever it is for the next five years and that's it i wasn't there at the time  cause many differences the cause of action was different the causes of action were different one was for enforcement the other was for for accounting for conspiracy for fraud which is the basis of a two fourteen  nine in it and it's a six one one fashion with prejudice because the only prejudice that would occur would be if in fact it was adjudicated previous way and with respect to that  argument your honor i believe that the argument that was raised and this never been challenge we raised the argument that the cork in it stick to it and in its findings i assume that it was a and that's clear but the cause of baksheesh to support the two fourteen zero one petition namely fraud wasn't discover until she exercised all reasonable efforts to up pain the information that that the husband the financial information that the husband promised he would the lever and we argue that he never intended to do that this to two to lull her into a false sense of security and entering into this mental settlement agreement in the first place and so that's a distinct difference for a line in which something is represented and crystallization comes about as a result of a five year effort to get the information that she was supposed to get that she got out of this information earlier there would be no doubt that she would have discovered exactly what she discovered in two thousand and five inadvertently when this merger took place between the three billion dollar company and husband seventeen billion dollar company in two thousand and five and so  they just pick up on the argument with regards to the two fourteen zero one petition and i think if you asked the question pointedly what allegations are different in the two fourteen zero one petition than the earlier attacking the enforcement and the compliance with the judgment unsuccessfully they were all stricken for a failure to state a claim and because of affirmative matters that the great negated the claim there's a crucial fact certain information unrelated surrounding redacted mr straw or complied with that provision and it's a matter of the record if you look in the in the record at the order that was entered on june ninth of two thousand and five that order reflects the fact that mr straw not only produced these documents himself voluntarily but also pursuant to a subpoena that was issued to his employer and then that information was provided to the the white three he has to pay the hundred percent of his first hundred thousand which is a very little over eight thousand dollars a month and so he's paying or eight thousand a month which is again i think the most common amount of money and here he was asserting that he name it didn't make a nickel over two facts however though is prior to the filing of the two fourteen zero one right situation and i don't profess to know exactly what documents during the period of time prior to the litigation starting the documents were produced on a going forward basis what i can tell you here on in certainty is that prior to the two fourteen zero one petition being filed all of the requisite documents had been produced so if there was any damage to mr stewart first of all suing that the documents were not produce contemporaneously if there was dollar that he had paid her everything that she was owed during that period and repeatedly mr or has failed to raise those i think dispositive facts out for the courts consideration that i think is is the key and there's no question that he's a fourteen a one kid the fourteen a one kid the fourteen a one there are there are deficiencies in the pleading itself beyond the statute of limitations on the two fourteen align and clearly the the key  allegations in the two fourteen zero one are that she that he allegedly failed to comply with the judgment by not producing the documents and by not a paying the amounts that would do under the judgment and it was clear that those facts were known to her greater than two lack of a statement from meritorious claim there are no cases that we were able to find that dealt with the conduct of a litigant after the entry of judgment that constituted fraud that it's half of validity of the judgment itself that is it wasn't a fact that was concealed to mrs true or that would have kept her from entering into the judgment in the first instance whether these are allegations of noncompliance and we know i'll ride this petition him about they filed petition after petition alleging non compliance with the judgment trying to make an unforced meant a complaint in the divorce court and they were unsuccessful in doing it now after being dismissed on three different occasions for failing to state a claim judge and the the ritual active child support issue is a simple as follows stacy filed a petition for an allocated to modify excuse me the unallocated support payments and june second two thousand  prior to the expiration of her own allocated maintenance she moved to voluntarily disarm miss that petition on june fourteenth two thousand and six sure she had fixed term right to seek retroactive support if she had elected to adjudicate her petition the court have the right to look back if it was appropriate but she voluntarily dismissed that petition she later found a new child support petition i'm eighteenth two thousand and seven and that was the petition that the court found it was hearing it was the only petition before the court regarding child support and awarded retroactive to that date the dispositive case on this issue  other of the cases cited within the brief were guarding to regarding retroactive support and it's absolutely dispositive on the issue of the facts in that case where is the husband filed a motion to modify his support he subsequently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss that motion to a modify that motion for voluntary dismissal was granted he subsequently tried to vacate that voluntary dismissal which was denied and then finally filed a supplemental motion to modify the support but argue that the retroactivity should go back to the earlier motion that he had moved for voluntary dismissal on that was denied and said that pursuant to the play language of five ten a that the voluntary dismissal acted as a final judgment on the earlier filed petition and the quote lacked the jurisdiction to award retroactive support any earlier than the trying to say proud courtly should look back to when i first filed it when i'm trying to lower my payments he says no we should look forward backward to lawyer pam there was there was there was a period of time he was making less money than he was at the time he filed the supplemental motion and all it did not and to your point the mirror settlement agreement in this case which says we agree with the court determines right cannot be read to mean that the court automatically has the  waving the application of five ten day that says the retroactivity begins upon the filing and notice of the petition that would mean that if the parties had reached their own agreement that about the practical impact of the opposite conclusion a child support they could have been to have been paid voluntarily for a period of years ok this is true it could have been satisfied with the months of court that she paid years ago by and suddenly for whatever reason i would say you know what i'm not happy with it i'm going to go back and i'm going to file  petition to set my child support and argue that because of this provision in our marital settlement agreement the quid needs to go back now retroactively in fathom whether or not the of the payments that i received and did not complain about were sufficient notice when it's both in the divorce decree and in his filings his files not just hers but his his requests in april of zero five please judge we've got a green please set an amount of child support and then two thousand and eleven argue from the pub court we can't believe you reset the amount of child support based on all five right that's the argument is it not interview it's not it's not a function of notice the don't know what is a function well i mean interestingly if you recall the way that this played out  there would have been any retroactive support awarded if it was if you know based on the amount of money that he was or into in that period putting that aside for a second i don't know that you can have it both ways i don't know you know five ten a day takes into the into consideration the public policy that we've been discussing this morning the protection of children and there is a countervailing interest for little kids to know when they are under any obligation to pay potentially retroactive child support so they can plan their own finances and when somebody tries to job the system and they withdraw that they have a final judgment and her relative to a petition for child support that they were seeking the law as it exists says you can't go back earlier thousand dollars was on an expense affidavit where mistress total expenses and sixteen thousand nine hundred sixteen thousand and change so there was no question that there were all expenses were being paid by the child support in addition to the children's so i mean this is the suggestion that somehow the judge the petition our position on the fees that was an abuse of discretion to award states is to or any fees other than what she incurred in connection with the child support proceeding  resolved by agreement on except for the retroactive support element of it which was argued before the court orally know that there was form shopping involved here that we've discussed this afternoon  connection with the two forty one petition we know that there was a failure to disclose to the court the complete language of paragraph eight of the marital settlement agreement and we know that there was a failure to advise the court of the documents that this is true or received and when she received them at the conclusion of the matter this is true presented one hundred twenty seven thousand dollars feel ward represented all of the fees that she incurred in the matter in arguing that sh did the reasonableness there was no reasonable in this to the fees that were incurred in this matter and that she should have borne some responsibility for her fees particularly in a post judgement case years after the judgment was entered and now we're talking about push judgment litigation that's approaching the length of the marriage with no miracle state with which to report sion fees and the precedent that the decision states is that if you are a non money spouse in a post judgement setting with a ex spouse that has money you can mitigate with impunity and you can lose all of your motions and be on the border of participation in participating sanctionable activity and the worst that's going to happen to you is you want have fight in march first of two thousand and five if they couldn't agree and they both decided they're not going to agree in and that's precisely the reason why we submit to your honor the mistress should be responsible for twenty two thousand of the hundred twenty seven thousand dollars which represents the fees incurred in connection with the child support and we presented that we have the time records we presented that evidence to the trial court that that was the portion of the fees attributable to the child support perceiving industry stronger is prepared contribute one hundred percent of those fees you already advanced fifteen thousand dollars during the course of the case in this suggesting they pay another seven so then this is true or paid no doubt or some connection with the child support and you  this is that been changed just requires basically my interpretation and i believed soon to be established laws that prospective the tourney fees require a hearing versus  particular instance your honor this was not it's a prospective feet so in terms of the the change the law it doesn't affect the existence of the law and if the application of that was that was made in accordance with the law on these fees what we have to remember is clearly section five away permits such fees they were done in accordance with section five a way winning or losing and especially by the economically disadvantaged spouses so much set for that i do want to this abuse