the future do you think that that portion of its order which judge mangan really seemed to key into whether this was or was not a substantial change do you think that they can do that because that seems to be wh i also believe that clearly his income decreased by approximately sixty thousand dollars and that he retired and his only source of income was in the back of your notation that we looked at was just getting really well i would argue that that's not really taking into and a lot of factors for a distance a declining market a twenty percent or the fact that my client still has the image that he was in those type of things so proposition that however a figure in the social security is really not divisible as an asset and but do you have any case that actually says you can't consider it as a stream of income just t interim period between the time of the divorce and the trial last year that pays you to continue working you continue contributing to the proper sharing plan the increase in value gone from sixty five thousand times worse two hundred eight thousand you've also owned a life insurance policy with the cash rendered value or value of over twenty thousand dollars that was not mentioned this morning he had enough he was remarried his new spouse was employed they hand out mine well and that in this period to pay extra mortgage their car payments they had they all work either because they had made many improvements to the residence and kind of stark contrast my client was living with her brother she did not she didn't see didn't really on the vehicle or her brother had been paying for the envelope that he had put in her name she was using it she considered it even to be her brother's vehicle she had no savings she had nothing and when you look at when you look at these types of actions one of the things you want to consider is you look at the standard of living his life away while they divorce she worked at a gas station and she was only able to work there about students through two and a half years and she was forced quit because the job involved her live lifting boxes and that type of she's been living with her brother and his wife and caring for her sister who has dementia and she spent quite a bit of time with her sister and it's not like she's sitting home doing nothing  retiring i'm not at all for social security i have a pension scheme and i should be getting credit against my passion for what i would have received in social security the wisconsin cases there is to prosecute crimes and serious crimes worse with the earlier case and that case also did not say that  it does not stand for that mission and in fact also involved in original divorce action and there was no there was no discussion in that case of the later illinois case law concerning this particular issue this statute five jan section five jan actually requires court to consider the status of all assets awarded the original divorce that's clear i mean the trial court had no discretion this this is something the court had to consider and since there's no husband had to leave his here twelve years later and if the park were to agree that we're not allowed to consider this this amount of warrant divorce then necessarily you would have to say between the inheritance and any assets that have been awarded in the divorce there's no difference there's logically there is no difference they have to be treated the same  even if the court were to agree that for some reason this portion of the profit sharing plan should be excluded from the term is this financial situation if you subtract you your original then even if you exclude a sixty five thousand dollars his income stream it would be thirty five dollars a month that's actually higher so the social security for child support or megan's purposes but that's not what i'm suggesting those are cases in my mind where social security and other income streams are combined and you basically have a factor is not paying that's different than what we have