it very viral argument for this case all weekend when a fifteen year old granddaughter asked me what i'm doing we're had the right to change their work have you ever had a client get married within the first thirty days after their divorce yes i have also told them don't good because strange things happen and i appeared strange things happen and i had to go in and try to fix it what if that thirty five days thirty five days no problem should have been stopped that is what you're saying that judgment should have been stopped and she had been out of the well it would have been fi restoring the parties to their pre filing marital status but instead we've got this situation where the probate word is acting we're like in a pan try to interpret the dismissal order in coming in to something that says the specialist ambiguous but causes dismissed is the word of art that we have used in this state in this country that case is gone but if you follow what judge where did she's divorced even though the case is gone and i don't know how you get away from the fact that the case no longer exists and of course  there's no basis to dismiss half way you have to dismiss the whole case or know that there's only two results that could happen in this case  one exists doesn't it they could have got to ask him to  well but you don't need to do that because when a case is dismissed it takes all the words with that order was not a final or it was within the thirty days and once you case the case is gone the court loses jurisdiction and any worst then over with that go away unfortunately i have looked and looked and looked to try to find some water that says that either she has her rights as a surprising spouse and is restored to that merrill status or she would have had rights to finish the case and what happens things would have happened i'm sure based on that thirty day the thirty five day period but in this case when you don't have a final order and the case is dismissed the judgment goes you've got part of the order that's being set did it part of the order is being invalidated because it was dispatched now you can't pick and choose which part of the order you're going to have either you got a you can't pick and choose which part of the word you want to keep so if the part of the order that gave the words is valid the rest of the word that reserve the issues must also be that but because of the dismissal the entire word and this is one of those cases i have struggled with because the basic thing here is if the case was dismissed and we've got all of these different things running around here in the center patients of an order when the case  case dismissed that would have been more helpful if we probably wouldn't be here good the reality is is that we don't do that course don't do that do and they were challenged and there were procedures that they could challenge that they didn't do  and she wanted to divorce they deal with the property issues later mr dome and then died on july fourth the wife's attorney then called the judge and said mr dolman died on july fourth there was no written order our motion made to vacate the order that already been entered no indication that was made be a personal representative substitute for that time so the attorney sara being controlled what happened at that point in time but what i believe that certainly made sense that judge wapner based upon a telephone call vacate the status hearing on the ancillary matters what was irregular though was that he took any action at that at that point in time how would a personal representative have come in at that time if according to mr phelps the divorce ended so and the spouse under the probate act would have been able to petition there certainly would have had been perceived to determine who the ministry are and by then affectively not having a remedy so with respect you know i can't answer that quick question for sure i don't know when the daughters became aware of the divorce of course court case was dismissed and i don't recollect off the top of my head when record there were communications among c attorneys relative to the procedural matters as well as substantive matters or so fancher question there were things going on outside of the core prior to that mises mr tate don't you think though that provision about not abating would apply if she wanted to proceed in the divorce case and have the fortitude cate her marital property rights in the divorce case she would have had a right to do that yes but whether it's a court within the first thirty days of bettering their judgment dissolution dismisses the case i think do you think it makes a difference that it was done within the thirty first thirty and not after is because the divorce is unitary so the divorce is unitary and the always has to go together i e if you dismiss half the case with them thirty days what's the difference if you dismiss half the causes dismissed it only meant that the prior order it did enter was vacated also and i think that's what their position that's what their position is i don't think that i don't know if i made the right decision so on my own i would bake a judgement and start all over so i wrong to do that in the specific cases you're three matters is vacated then he says costs missed out why would cause be anything different than the reserved matters that was actually pending before the court at that point in sarah asked for a divorce her attorney prepared the order it was entered in open court she was specifically cognizant of what this was actually going to zero to do with th against her for any property that she might or were there might be titled in her name and pry the divorce case in the public or there is no provision for that that's why we have a divorce the worst case is everything with it and you can't have a church put out there in a vacuum with no or any jurisdiction and no with the worthy in the core might have been simpler if you tried this case in fort cali where there's only one judge said that would have been true but we have two cases two judges two separate seating and we have to respect