terminate maintenance after a substantial change of circumstances and this temper two thousand and seventeen he experienced a job loss and about four and a half five months later he responded filed  which combined that would come by the will to show cause with a finding of indirect civil contempt whether that was wrongly entered the other issues really to revolve around my client's efforts to obtain an agreement before the rule was filed and even after the rule was filed to allow my client some additional time in which to find suitable employment what happened next is there is a difference of opinion on whether there was actually an agreement there were some terms that were specifically used such as a yes we have an agreement my client was then forced to file a supplemental an additional five hundred and ten dollars motion to modify and terminate ignatz which in  for determination of a finding of indirect civil contempt if you look at the river judge so sure the court should enter a rule yes and settle for an evidentiary hearing project and should there be some sort of service on the defendant after that presenters miss a much like what happens in a citation proceeding across the street right if the citation if the judgment debtor does not show up the rule is issued and then there's a hearing on whether a finding of civil contempt should be entered much like didn't happen in this case and milton vs terror is pretty direct on that issue and it finds that those two distinct actions be combined into one in direct finding the finding of interests of a contention out of issue to begin with the fact that it was triggered a mandatory section of five or eight b when there is an effort on the part of the other not to contend nor to to to pursue the content proceeding their fiber would be automatically kicks and there isn't a determination or consideration of the ability to pay that point if there's case law that is contrary to that even though it's nest right now i suppose you could payment of reasonable fees from the from the perry against who the court finds that very complied with a court order so i look at some of the other cases that address five away as a whole and what you're trying to do is is least maintenance and a period of payroll and my client has stansell change of circumstances his circumstances were that he was getting paid almost one hundred and thirty thousand dollars he's a fifty year old man and those jobs and i t industry are going to much younger people so we tried to work it out counseling i for about six months between the time that he lost his job and the time the rule was was filed initially the petition for his st filed but couldn't reach an agreement and then afterwards we didn't reach an agreement as i guess i explained it pretty clear those terms that i say in my brief yes we have an agreement please tell the judge we have an agreement but neither opposing counsel of the judge agreed with me but then i point to principles of a stop and say wait a minute where is the harm that befell my client at that months try to find suitable appointment and see what happens about the maintenance records from that point forward see if we can modify the original main answer and that's the best from my spanish point that's the that's the theme of this case whether my client is entitle  the court's finding was basically the content is that correct it was and if you take a look at the order again judge there is some other and this is again at c two hundred and forty five of the came to court that day early in the early inept care of the day he learned that he couldn't leave his new job and so we didn't have we didn't have a hearing with my client present even know if you look at the transfer my explanation was somewhat non li basis to to make a ruling without your client being there because it's your burden to establish the change in circumstances and so i know there were there were briefs on file i think they were supported by affidavits but there was a fat question because what you said i don't think they agreed with so it would be difficult for the court to make our ruling without your client in it i mean i would think so  thousand dollars for your forward you know your willfully underemployed or something finding your willfully underemployed or something like that and then this wasn't a sation and there was no sanction so three or  well this was a separate exchange is that true as the calcium iraq tell we did exchange some words as we left there was there were a whole host of e mails that went back and forth i maintain that i kept my civility walking down the escalator she has a different view of it but site and her in the transcript she says i didn't see what happened outside microgram i can't judge that the place about what happened inside my court room i might find that there's a sanction of two hundred and fifty dollars but i want to make it clear the motionless on one hundred and thirty seven  that i had improperly brought in sentiment destructions and should never brought in settlement discussions in a motion that was part of my motion to modify the really what the issue came down to is that i did make an interesting and the statement that was made or that that was the crew of that motion wes that yes we have an agreement please tell the judge we have an agreement my client acted on bad representation that there was an agreement and then said to him and now i have to now have to sell off my ok now i have to incur the penalty associated with it yes your client gets immediate resources but she could have you know she could have done that she should have taken a loan of the four a one k she should've taken the entire four in one  simply transfer it in her name but that wasn't the problem with that i see it is that the motion was brought against me under rule one hundred and thirty seven and the motion was directly related to whether i had a good me put it that was the basis for the finding of the failure or finding out there was no compelling cause or justification for a correct surely if there wasn't a contest then there would because he was not following the growth would probably be says that the court plays the failure to comply with your judgement was without compelling cause or justification so yes to make th says is that the court finds that the failure to comply with the order was without compelling course or justification and in this case based on the purged the the  because my clients have to have me fatter petition for writ to get him to pay right but i mean the the finding that he didn't have justification what they're saying is you couldn't pay because he  made less money but he actually could pay it was just that he had a cashier this for one dollar kid or whatever the heck is that correct thank you very much interviews he's doing this and that that never happened so i'm fast forwarding in my client's not there there's a good chance the judge would have simply said well this doesn't change the circumstances the same as from the initial time i found your client in civil c