the first case this afternoon is case from before dash sixteen days zero four three five and read the marriage and can you help me with pronunciation eggroll thank you appearing propellent as attorney howard baldwin and for rhyme good afternoon mr feldman are you ready for s case arises from a discussion that occurred twenty ten very judgment of dissolution of marriage of century and there are two issues that arise from judgment they arise as a result of a modification satisfied the mortgage or it could take you to pay the mortgage until satisfied that is what the judgment stated mr eggroll chose to make the monthly mortgage payments and has continued to make them up the mortgage  this court i am sure is aware that this is a second to feel there was an appeal from the original dissolution of marriage filed by mr april there was no cross appeal it is our position that the determination as to this language and mr eggrolls right to be able to pay the mortgage on a monthly basis rent and a lump sum is part of the property provisions contained in the judgment and not subject to modification by a subsequent proceeding pursuant to five and may be set aside or to change your property division you need to bring a motion effectively ended two fourteen zero wife claiming that somehow the judgment was prepared by some improper way the trial court in this case and i'm not i'd like to tell you that i remember the exact date but when that the out what it is it's either to satisfy the mortgage or to pay the mortgage until satisfied if he's paying the mortgage until satisfied peacemaker those monthly payment and he's current there is nothing to ok go ahead so with respect to our human person just because there was no appeal and i say no cross appeal say this doesn't make sense no motion to reconsider nothing that really know what's being asked to be enforced i must've been trying to just imports half of that provision and not the other the more difficult and my view being candid with the court relates to modification of the maintenance provision that was a rehabilitative maintenance because a petition for five years prior to the parties thousand dollars at the time the parties for marriage was solved miss a role had been a stay at home mother for a number of years had done some i think preschool teaching and really had a bit out of the workforce and at the time of the dissolution was working or it started to work shortly thereafter with a but the second the county state's attorney's office earning in the mid twenty's also did a second job with her hobby lobby of that supplemented her income over the period of the next four to five years till the time of the judgement she stayed in that position she is college educated and her her income increased to approximately thirty seven thousand dollars at the same county state's attorney from where it was was fortunate post judgment i'm not going to pull the lever that but that's what drives this case to be honest with you as the post judgement incomes of history mr eggroll had received as part of the had they started he started to receive coal royalties that combined with some increase commodity prices substantially increased prices his income skyrocket and now i would suggest just so it's clear the call is no property that's part of the real estate that was there he sold it and his income at times was in excess of two hundred thousand oh he was fortunate now he's paying his maintenance yet sixty months it was known by everybody putting to say that this is rehabilitated me she did never sought additional employment from the sangamon county state's attorney's office and let me be clear about that there is nothing wrong with serving as a secretary and a public body of the sag the county state's attorney's office but when you make certain economic decisions about it's better than commuting down downtown chicago i like the benefits one of the things the testimony was she liked the fact that she had a vested defined benefit if you get invested you trade off maybe some current income to do that but the bottom line when you look at her overall expenses in this post of the ultimate and i guess you missed it the ultimate issue before the court is what has it to it's a substantial change in circumstances to that abuse of discretion you have to look at how the court analyze the fact if the court totally looked at just mr abels income and apply a wrong i'm alice's rather than looking at year marriage and somebody post judgment the size she i'm going to change my lifestyle and i'm going to become a surgeon makes a lot more money goes to the education does it that that shouldn't be entitled to that amount of money just the same day as a spouse paying me on a permanent basis if it walked into court and said you know i would make a two hundred thousand dollars as a as a physician i really want to be a missionary so i'm going to voluntarily give up the missionary draft post judgment everybody's going to say no and i used extremes to try to raise that  lifestyle when you look at the expenses the big expense that has change his health the trip suggests changes for all of us five years but the bigger question is to me her income we excess of thirty percent well from twenty seven thirty thousand house to forty six thousand and that's without seeking another employment state of illinois separate set of issues but but are any other comparable kinds of jobs role wasn't said she didn't lose her position she didn't have some of them had to move to keep her from being able to move forward she liked what she was doing in the benefits she was receiving is directed to satisfy the mortgage on the property in a lump sum or continue paying the mortgage until satisfied the court said nothing about at chest option or cats choice rather it said he's directed to satisfy the mortgage on the property in a lump sum or continue paying the mortgage until satisfied in fact mr aggro for more than six years now has made the minimum monthly mortgage payment on this mortgage the court back six years ago i don't believe could have foreseen that i believe what the court was doing back six years ago was recognizing the for a period of time recognizing that she could come back and ask for a pay off that forty four thousand was the amount that was owed on that mortgage when we were in court which would be if we disregard interest on that completely another eleven years that mrs and that mrs agra would have to wait to receive her house that was awarded her affectively what mr feldman's interpretation would do agree with you that had there been a settlement agreement it i would put it a lot differently depending on how it was so if if the court had just said he can continue to make monthly payments on this until it was paid in full i believe this review different situation because in fact we would be asking for a modification but the fact that the court threw both languages out there both parts of it out there and then basically chose the mechanism of the court our motion to enforce chose the mechanism by which it would occur it said i'm going to order a lump sum payoff of this that's in force that's there's two options they're available and the court then chose what option that would be for the pay off the mortgage and courts you know often times are called on for idea of reasons to figure out of the ambiguity to make a determination based on what your property award was it's not the ideal situation it's not perfect but often courts are called on to do that you see that sometimes on pensions you see it when you know military retirement you see it for a variety of different reasons but that's exactly what this court did and it specifically said you know the the determination the way mr agra wanted to be would be basically saying you're waiting twenty years for someone to get the piece of property  that was awarded to them and that and that makes very very little sense you know did the court consider i'm sure when it after it determined that it had an option of going one way or the other way  did the court at that point look and recognize that his economic situation had changed in terms of his ability to pay off a mortgage she no longer owed sixty four thousand dollars and rather have had as mr feldman call it some great fortune in terms of the assets that had come his way from property and assets that were unknown monies that were unknown at the time of the at the time of the judgment of dissolution of marriage i believe that really to argue that no reasonable per person would do what what jeff davis did i don't believe is is a valid argument has run yes i understand your point about  cross appeal i don't think so and here's in terms of i believe that we always have that right that that the way that it was written was such that she always had the right to go to the trial court and say hey there's two options here there's two ways of doing this you choose option two now you happy you have both of these that are alive you choose the second one whether bent to go through the expensive process of an appeal i don't believe that she said mr ag role can make monthly payments on this on this mortgage for the remainder of the mortgage term i believe she would have had to have appealed that then because that was the only that was the absolute way that it was supposed to happen but when there is language in there saying it's one or it's the other and she has the right to go forward at a later date and say hey i want that lump sum payoff i'm asking the court to ensure that the trial court still have the option of doing that  with respect to in there and we could cite law in terms of the marriage of davis case which set forth the test the test which is does the petitioner seek to incur after new obligations and we we did not ask for new obligations we asked simply for the payment of the mortgage under a term that had always been there in the divorce decree so i believe under that marriage of davis standard this is not a  the court did not increase maintenance the court maintained the exact amount means we asked for an increase of maintenance based on a variety of different circumstances but it maintain the same amount what it did is it said and i leave that out in arguments as well they did not appeal the amount they're not they're appealing the making of it their ways you know i'm sorry i'm not sure we did not know we did not see that and that's you know that's a tough issue of whether you you appeal things like that when you have a a a person who's a very moderate income person of how much appealing you do of those things but the reality is that that's not an appeal and so what they're asking for is that either be rehabilitated began or that it be or that it be terminated altogether and i believe that the evidence in this case showed where we laid out in verify passion and form that she no longer worked there because of an injury since she sustained and that's part of the record in this case but with respect to her income very moderate with respect to his income with respect to mr aggros income and we're not i'm talking just the farm income and the capital gain income associated with the coal rights that he received and so forth those were really were fairly thousand dollars compare that to what her income situation has been and this is based on working up the same farmland being the same kind of farmer he's always been it's not that you know he went out and got another job that he's it's he's doing what he always did it's true this is this is as big a capital gain in there to a place based on the and i'm not sure how they ascertain the basis for those call those mineral rights and so forth and how they came up with the capital gain two hundred forty one thousand to two thousand and twelve was for fifty five and twenty thirty three fifty five then up to three ninety in twenty and twenty fourteen with respect to the coal royalties the testimony was he didn't his income situation and then her you know her insurance rate or her insurance has had about tripled she had her in her expenses over the time of the divorce had increased very substantially i think over a thousand dollars a month in terms of what her expenses are this was a twenty six year marriage i have i did for the court and maintenance under the new guidelines and i took the twenty fourteen figures that he  made and her twenty four thousand figures and just did the analysis for the court his statutory if you do guideline meat and scapula should be twenty five hundred dollars a month it would be permanent because it was a twenty six year marriage i believe that in the court in in and it went through five or four factors that went through five ten factors and it and it analyzed all the factors in its decision and i believe it balanced all of those factors and was well within  its authority to make this maintenance permanent and it cited i think you took pains to cite illinois law supporting making maintenance permanent in this kind of a case i am more than happy to answer the specific language from the judgment is geoffrey is directed to satisfy the board which on the property in a lump sum and then i underline this word or not and i'm not a potential or continue paying the mortgage until satisfied you don't have to say we'll done until satisfied me until doc you know room proof you're just not being there to modify it it's just merely too and if you're forcing it and he's making every payment i guess the best way i would put it is somebody came in for a rule show costs and says you haven't paid it off he comes in and says i've made every payment on the mortgage since the judgment was entered i believe a court would say you're following the court in effect that's what you're allowed to do whether this was a good order or not a good order is it can be debated me i don't know there's a there's a number of years and possibly if she came here and said she has no interest i asked if the house had been listed there was any reason to do it you could even su such language if she put it but nobody objected to the language for five years we want to five years and tell anybody even raises the issue and it's tied together  with respect to the mate it's the course just listen to mistrial the payment it's all relating to the post judgment and of mr eko this is a re she's not working it's sad that she can't find a job she found a job she likes and she wants mr a role to supplement it because it doesn't pay and i would suggest the increases in income over the five years although modest compared to many government jobs and and this area that is more than modest because there haven't been any increases for a lot of lawyers over a number of years was sad was it mr abels a standard of living during the marriage not standard of living after the marriage and what was said was that the family that family lived on fifty thousand dollars a