fifteen equals one hundred and fifteen dollars overnights per year of parties three months later we're divorced by way of an agreed marital settlement agreement and that was done on september th two thousand and fifteen pursuant to the terms of the marital settlement agreement mr connelly was a w two employee and he also had the ability to earn commissions and bonuses pursuing to the the statute at th time profile five the law in a fact was that the pay wars nonresidential parent's income would be calculated at the rate of twenty percent of their net income that's why the that's why mr connelly was read in order to pay the amount of one thousand five hundred and fifty dollars per month as in for child support within that provision of child support because we've discussed additional income in the domestic relations division we look to paragraph eleven of the financial affidavit which provides one and a half pages of additional forms of income whether it is by subsequent to the entry of so with regards to the bonuses and commissions that my client received after two thousand and fifteen there was a true provision and that your provision was based on twenty percent of base salary his base our e was one hundred thousand dollars and he received a ten percent increase there by making his base salary now one hundred and ten thousand dollars is sackets tractor was an increase in this connelly's income which increased by almost fifty percent from the time of the entry of the judgments in two thousand and fifty so it went from roughly  when she received her inheritance she could have done anything she wanted with it she could have sold all the securities she could have purchased the house she could have taken all the money in and then anything she wanted so there was never a point in time where there then there certainly would be he questioned for the court to deviate or modified from the child support guidelines of twenty percent of the currents under the current child support  law i know that there is a cap at five hundred thousand dollars but she neither one of them are close to that with regards to their income come by so the point of the new five will five is to put dinners out dining out with children friends household expenses as with payment it just all daycare in the summer because during the summer they have a different agreement whereby you have more consecutive days where all i think it would be three days in a row to look at the schedule and then gasoline utilities it to these memberships so it was more because he's having the children on not just every other weekend one day very week but much more substantial time that has increased income represented a substantial change the trial court noted illinois law i'm sorry illinois now uses an increase in income shares approach to child support in ryan's case the use move forward beyond the direct to finding which the trial court had done after my piece and she and that's why as part of the story and it's  the payee i mean demonstrate some type of very minor some cases i would say that was still substantial changes circumstances to justify the modification chiles or and whether that be a presumption that the kids are two years old or so they eat more or five in opposite obviously section five hundred and ten consistently it included provisions that demonstrate that there has to be some change other than the new statute going into a fact in order for modified by using the new mathematical formula or equation to determine child support and the reason that is there presumptively is to avoid an influx of every generally p attention to that then but she is now she's making ten thousand dollars as opposed to zero substantial change my child support was not in most circumstances and i understand some with generalizing but that's in essence the effect that this new statute  doesn't change correct so now it's become i would sit home and place in the domestic relations practice to try to find any type of a change in circumstance as you try to get your client to get a reduction even if their by by default that's true because the financial declaration wasn't implemented by the only supreme court and a change in the statute until january st of two thousand and sixteen this is a two thousand and fifteen judgement so there's absolutely no claim that can be made in th narrow settlement agreement is clear unambiguous it says performance bonus additional income period so the increase in his base income is already dull and in just retarded is the judge who heard he knows that if you lose investments you lose your income because the investments generate the income is this is genuineness to sit before the court and say even as a financial advisor who makes my money this way i had no idea  so to say that mr cowley was surprised that this was the income generating asset i think again is this ingenuous then let's take it another step further the parties are required to seize your actually turns every year in two thousand and sixteen mr kiley never filed any type of a motion to vacate the judgment or modify support because he now knew exactly what the dividend income was that my client received in two thousand and fifteen based upon the the year when she basically a thirty seven in the other this is also an issue that was laid in the record actually your flights to us were asking us to tender to her our proposed calendars of what we believe mr connelly's parrying time was for dates you are here so they  powell is calendar and his testimony so when you go from his pleading i have one hundred and sixty five overnights to here in three months while i'm one hundred and fifty one and then i cut off my cross examination based upon the way the hearing was going in may have been demonstrated additional rate that he actually didn't have that his calendar which is part of the record reflects demonstrates that this is a situation where in there is it there is a genuine question that the trial sandwiches at home so to say that my expenses of going up and actually no supporting documentary evidence and just say was underbody because i said so i don't think that's what unrebutted means unrequited means looking at whether or not there isn't when dealing with this and saying that he has all these additional overnights i mean frankly there's nothing to demonstrate that judge awesome risk inclusion was wrong she went through she got she figured she heard the evidence she heard the testimony she saw the demeanor of the parties she i don't believe they met their burden at the trial court and i certainly don't believe that they met their burden to demonstrate that the judge oscar's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence there's no other questions thank you very much you  is that george oster burgers determination that there was less than one hundred and thirty or one hundred and thirty one overnight just as palpably untrue it's mathematically impossible based on the allocation of parenting time between par and i agree with you completely or just completely but in this particular point we're talking about a court order not provided mr connelly an additional thirty one overnights now the reason why mr john mccain said he had up to one  five is because he went through his calendar and the and the days that miss connally had offered him they were not assigned to him he added to the one hundred and sixty five so that's why that number was not inflated with that was the actual number for that particular year now we're in a situation where if we actually look at the allotted time that he's assigned by the judge he needs to be needs down the threshold for shared parenting which would be one  six but that's that's that's more of a tangential issue in the overall substantial change in circumstances that's one of the other two who happens to deal with or that are the predominant one happened cydia with miss connally's income it was not contemplated in america suddenly by any stretch of the imagination that that she would receive dividends interesting come or any other source of passive income as it was never stated on her  was moving the assets away from my client as a financial advisor she was hiring another firm another company another financial advisor and they could at that point reinvest the securities they could restructure her full deal there was because i had it she discovered cetera with regards to what is the amount that she will receive in this particular document which wasn't sent for the purpose of establishing her getting her passive income it's state her didn't comment on her income at all at all other than insane she received seventy five thousand dollars an opponent she didn't even the court didn't stick with the bonus was it seventy five thousand dollars plus five thousand