scuffs a couple of points that i now rely on my brief to discuss the remaining points unless of course the court has any other questions regarding those remaining points the first thing i want to talk about talk about briefly is the issue of hearsay in this matter there was if there was a trial that was held one of the biggest issues that came up was a meeting from november of two thousand and six in which at present at this meeting was the appellant the stone also the apple leaf mr hodge minogue who is at the time and assistant attorney general for the state of illinois at that meeting there are differing versions of what occurred at that meeting but what came out at trial hodges was an allegation that ms minogue had made statements to the to the fact that mr hodges child support would be reduced and that in fact there would be an order that would be entered by her with the court that would in effect lower his child support and it's also important to note for the court that in fact they were even there on that issue they were their own will to show cause against mr hodges at that time so at that at the trial level at  case the question under direct examination by mr rollo who is mr hodges attorney question so you brought those tax returns in the attorney from h f s which would be mr the nobody took a look at those tax returns and what did she proceedings went on to a discussion about how in the courtroom in practice the attorney general meets with the litigants outside of the courtroom works out a deal and then comes back in so once anything but i would like to address the concern about hearsay because a lot of the testimony that it's hard to want to give is hearsay but it goes to the elements of equitable stoppel which i skipped over before and i polish guys nervous and i forgot to mention that so in essence what mr rod did at that point was in his response to my objection for hearsay says well it's hearsay but it's relevant it's relevant to the issue of equitable stoppel judge becker of didn't even go go down that path instead judge becker then says as far as the technical basis for overrule the objection the department of health and human services is a party to the case because they were in there litigating on behalf of mr own and so a statement by the a don't make that injection every time the statements are made regarding this minority the reason that that is that that is so important is because when we got into the cross examination of mr  apple e in this case i asked him a question i said let me ask you a question so was it was it in fact someone from h f s that maybe told you that you should pay a lower amount answered by mr  cases in our brief to stich show that in fact the ruling by judge backer as to the hearsay exception is not a valid section and admission by a party poll is not valid when it comes from an agent of the state   cited in our brief people versus mcdaniel which in fact was a state's attorney that was involved in the case and there was some discussion between a defendant and the state's attorney in that peculiar case and the appellate court found actually  only supreme court found that emissions by a government employee particularly in this case the state's attorney insists and security were not an admission by a party opponent because the state's attorney in those cases and the it's just an attorney general in this case in fact do not have an interest they don't have an interest in the case they're there representing the state and so they are not a party to the case such that the at the appellate or the apple e would be a party to the case the next issue that i want to talk about is probably the crux of the discussion in the brief is that in this matter when we look at whether or not equitable stop applies the trial court in this matter did it did not for delinquent child support against the ex husband the father of the children there was in that case actually an agreement in this case to hear that there may have been agreement there may not have been agreement we  there was not an agreement with the apple he says there was even if there was an agreement the blissett case there was there was in fact an agreement the parties had said well if the father will forego visitation then he will no longer be required to pay child support fast for for a few years later in that case and the father then once to re insert him self back in and the mother says we had a deal so i'm going to go back and try to collect all that past the child support it's up to to supreme court and the only supreme court says it doesn't matter if you had an agreement modification of child support is a is only a function of the court there has to be a petition to modify it has to be filed with  if that's not filed then it takes it takes the court out of the process and the court is the only one and then determine whether it's in the best interest of the child to reduce the child support so even though in that case there was that agreement the mother and the father both agreed that there was an agreement and the supreme court said doesn't matter you that agreement will not stand so then they had to look at whether act with full stop will applies and in that case they found that equitable stoppel did not apply and the big reason why they found that was so equitable stoppel did not apply was because failing to anticipate unpaid child support can not be a basis for a detriment to the party just because you say well now i have to pay in a lump sum or now i have to pay all this child support that has accrued that is not a detriment to the party in addition to that even in the discussion implicit as the relates to at will stop all the court then went back again and discussed how the court's role is to modify it in the parties cannot go in a modified on her own the other case we've cited is in remarriage of michael which also has some facts that are very analogous to the beat to the case in remarriage of michael there was a husband and wife that again were trying to negotiate a side deal for the reduction of child support they had agreed on a reduction in child support but then with the agreement was prepared the  was not signing the agreement in this particular matter when all three of the party scene there at that meeting in two thousand and six the testimony that's in the record is that mr hodges knew that the parties did not did not sign the agreement so when they left there was nothing that was signed the only thing that he alleges is that he turned in general the system turned general said she would file an order even without the signatures on i think the court will find that because of the high standard in determining epp will stop and convincing standard that you'll find that there are not many cases out there in illinois in which epa will stop will has been found to be applied there are only really two lines of cases in which ep will stop will has been applied say they involve a change of custody so one or all of the children went from the custodial parent to the non custodial parent then when the custodial parent came back and said you owe me all this child support he did not pay the vs martinez which is cited i believe in both of the case in both briefs it's a fourth district case from two thousand and six and that case that will stop it was applied only because the father had moved to kansas and the father went to a kansas corps and received a a court order out of kansas reducing the amount of child support the court found in that particular case that that who are out of kansas was not effective because it did not supersede the illinois court illinois courts still retain jurisdiction of the matter but because the father relied on an actual order from a court of law the neck will stop to be applied i don't think you'll find either of those either of those cases in this particular matter under the blisses standard correct will stop will there has to be several really four points that are met one is that they have to be a statement or conduct which i've already mention in this case by stone to hodges you have to the court had to find that that those statements induced scientists to rely on those statements it has to be to his detriment and then finally that hajis had no knowledge or convenient means of knowing t in this instance you'll find that none of those three even addressed so the trial court in this matter did not did not discuss did not talk about and did not rule on any four of those elements in fact the only thing the trial court ruled on was general confusion the order it's on page one of two in the report of proceedings the order from the court came from the bench it wasn't in a written order and the court says why do i decide didn't make it abundantly clear that it was seven hundred eighty eight dollars and not one hundred sixty five dollars it seems to me and the appellate court may disagree it seems to me that because of these deals side deals discussions whatever the parties did the record has been made about how they proceeded so in effect the trial court down much honorable judge becker did not even discuss these four elements for equitable stoppel the judge went back even though the judge had already dismissed the claims on an agreement proprietor prior motion dismissed the judge then went back to these side deals and use the standard that would be similar to a mutual mistake of a contract and so there was confusion here and you could see that he goes off that confusion because he says there were these what the amount should be it wasn't her burden to show what the amount should be there was an original order that said the amount should have been seven hundred eighty eight dollars even if the judge applied those four standards and i would submit to you i think the apple he will argue that the judge made specific findings on those and i would agree the judge made finance but did not use those particular standards that are set forth by the supreme court even if the judge would have used those standards i think you'll find that still act little stoppel is not met the elements were met there first you'll find and i mentioned earlier on hearsay argument there was no well there were allegations at the trial for that there were some there were letters that were written in two thousand and nine mr own said that those were based on prior agreement what i'll submit to the two to your honor that is that dismiss and this son of his dismissed the appeal and that was really because the appellant had misstated the statement of facts and ignored that that compelling piece of evidence the judge backer was relying on which was a letter that was written in two thousand and ten and included a summary up through two thousand and ten of payments they were attached to it spreadsheets showing two thousand and seven two thousand and eight two thousand and nine and part of two thousand and ten payments all accounted for one hundred  sixty five dollars a week that was the critical piece of evidence a judge back or was asking the appellant to explain when she was on again and allowed her several opportunities to try explaining that and at the end of it or early explanation the best that he could say was that there was confusion about her explanation but not about the elements of aqua velva stop that is not what he was referring to what about the letter but you have well it been submitted under affidavit and a motion for s judgment when it was presented in court a copy of it was handed to the appellate attorney and then you have the a witness mr hyde just authenticated the document the judge was reading along on the screen because  the document was part of the court record it's part of the record on appeal it was attached to my brief as well that document was available in the courtroom it was in our own handwriting she admitted that she had written that document she was unable to specify exactly when she had read it but she did it meant that she wrote it and it did say thank you for catching up at one hundred sixty five dollars a week so clearly she had taken action in addition to him but it was really to this question of whether the the record was complete that i filed that motion to dismiss because the other thing that the appellant brought up was the  should judge get back or gave about his personal knowledge of how the assistant attorney general's work with pros a clients and the court and he was concerned that maybe he was overstepping by using his own personal knowledge in addressing a question of what went on on that day when they all met at the courthouse on that issue was discussed at great length and hearing in november of two thousand and sixteen which a court didn't have the record and i didn't think that this was going to be an important issue because it doesn't play directly on the question back a couple of stoppel but it was my feeling that through the incomplete statement of facts and ignoring that document that was submitted and verified in the court and the judge relied on that in making his decision in questioning or expressing his concerns about to the appellant about her or her actions all of that was was glossed over by the the appellant in his brief and sure enough i can correct the statement of facts and i believe i did but when it comes down to the having no report of that proceeding in november of two thousand and sixteen that's missing that was where judge becker addressed the question that's was if a question of whether or not  you could have a modification of child support without a petition to modify and despite the this isn't of the supreme court he said it was common practice in the clayton county courthouse to do that but none of that makes a difference what we've  agreement what we need are behavior of the parties in order to justify equitable a stop and we have that we've got we've got that spades mr stone and accepting these accounting for this the state the the payments in that way we've got  them mr high just responding in kind in paying the child support catching up every year he's a construction worker so you'd fall behind when he was on unemployment during the winter months as soon as he got his tax return he'd make a large payment in multiples of one hundred sixty five to catch up he was induced not to pursue any sort of further legal action in two thousand and six when they were divorced in two thousand and four to two thousand and six as income dropped over thirty percent that's outlined in my brief as well and that was not the the question here say which i'll get to in a minute but if all the elements were there the detriment to him sixteen dollars a week was the difference in the pain's between what the court order was and what they managed over the all those years and what on his house when h f s got back into the case it was reasonable he was in the courthouse right the some the judge and the clerk tell all pros a litigant says you can't change a child support order on your own you've got to come back to court he came back to court he came back to court under threat of imprisonment losing his license and all the other possible penalties for being behind on his child support he left the court house at day thinking that he had come to an arrangement but more importantly mr stone behaved like they had come to an arrangement over him an extended period of time she turned around the following month based on that agreement that they came to they talked about child support and there is a copy of this agreement the draft copy of the agreement was kept by mr stone mr hodges thought it was going to be filed that's what he says the attorney general the system attorney general there had told him she kept a copy agreement it showed where it was she later went and got a judgment we without a judgment based on that amount that was on at that order  and it also showed that with all of all they attached the not pro taco order the corrected the original dissolution order because the original order had said that she would pay him child support rather than him paying her and so they just attached that and said that doing a one hundred that or that was the amount of ten thousand dollars when he went to refinance his house his banker recommended that he go ahead and pay that off so he refinanced baxter and took a loan to pay off his child support the era that had been said that he had been paying his child support from him to her and so this was just a scrivener's there in the order that her attorney the drafted saying that she would pay him so the court enter the order not proton to correct the language on that six months later she got h f s involved and told them that he hadn't paid any child support at all so she's got a history of plaintiffs to her advantage and not maybe following the rules as well as possible her lawyer went and thousand and eight when he was refinancing his house so he paid that off they continued on with these payments of one sixty five a week right up until two thousand and fourteen when this stone went back to intervened without any permission from the court they just got back into the case and were in two thousand and six when they left the case it said we won't garnish his wages we won't garnish is unemployment we want intercept dispatch returned they got back in two thousand and fourteen without consulting a court and they started doing all that and they started collecting based on an affidavit from mr stone which was shown to be wrong one of the concept we had in this original petition to determine the arrearages was that mr hodges had submitted check images to h f s asking them to recalculate how much he owed based on how much he paid and it turned out that he paid in excess of four thousand dollars more than her affidavit stated this spite her careful accounting of these accounting sheets which are part of the record  there are a lot of equities in this one the judge had the opportunity he saw both parties testified he heard their testimony during testimony i hear it's bust the concern what he needed to hear was an explanation of that letter saying one sixty five is it and you're catching up it one sixty five a month and again i guess i i skipped over the elements again but i had detriment and so the detriment was his ability to go back and get a  modification when his is income would drop thirty plus percent a detriment was sixteen dollars a week would have been easy but seventeen thousand dollars was huge in the seven thousand dollars and nine percent interest at the nine percent interest isn't a detriment you know i mean it's certainly not the going interest rate and then it was reasonable and he had no knowledge because he thought this is all been taken care of in the court you never heard anything more you know this is not a he wasn't represented by an attorney he had no idea wh  he should receive paperwork or not but what he did was for the next eight years live with his one hundred sixty five dollars a week and it was accounted for in that way and so he kept making those payments and i did touch on some of these these these equities of the situation and mr stone was shopping back and forth between h f s and the trial court one of the big things that caused all sorts of confusion in this case is i was particularly concerned with the actions of h f s in this case too because they were a tool of mr stump to torture mr haji there were a lot on her affidavit they refused to consider his evidence he submitted a list of all the checks he paid first they said that wasn't good enough he submitted every check image of every child support payment he made between two thousand and six and two thousand and fourteen when they came back into the case they promised that at the hearing they finally had a hearing and they still said we haven't done the accounting yet but will and we can't listen to your argument of the equitable argument that you should be paying something different than the order but they want to have an issue to a finding on that equitable argument anyway and then promised in their final order they said and we're going to be filing something in clinton county started up with confusion because the state contended that it was actually an administrative review action when it was it was two thousand and four before trying to figure out what do you owe based on the  is an equitable argument that would is one of all of the the behavior of the clients and in judge becker having gone through multiple hearings on this not just the the final evidentiary hearing that was involved in that you have a transcript for the other hearings and i'm being inundated with a barrage of paperwork on this case he was well aware of all the elements and there were plenty of examples where those could be found in this and he's not it's not incumbent on him to spell out each of the elements in this he found that equitable stoppel applied and he was in a position to see the equities of all the actions of both parties and hear their testimony and judge their credibility and so it was well within his discretion to apply the principle of  would like to touch on the back over his martinis case it's been suggested in in some articles out there that that one element of equitable is not even an element of that would have a stoppable one element of the fact pattern they can  that would be a windfall to the ex wife and their equitable stoppel applied this is very much a similar case it wasn't a court in kansas it was the clinton county courthouse where mr hodges showed up he met with an assistant attorney general who had the full authority to deal with these pros a lead against judge becker was aware of how that process worked and that's where he was he was concerned that maybe his knowledge of that process and having worked in the clinton county courthouse for many years with many different  attorney generals maybe all of that was a concern for him but it didn't change any of the the elements here and he still was able to find those are all in the evidence and what we've got here is the color of law of that courthouse  reasonable for mr hodges to believe that one last thing was a hearsay and that was the first thing that mr grumpy brought up the question of hearsay this case was one about you know was the testimony presented for the truth of the matter and it was none of these things that were hearsay if we're trying to argue that he should have got a modification that was an agreement any of those things would have been hearsay because he was saying she told him something but here he heard something and this made it reasonable for him to believe that this agreement was that that he could function it one sixty five a week and he could reasonably rely on because he heard it from and attorney and it's only the fact that it came out of her mouth that he could testify to and there was plenty of evidence including a partially filled then uniform testified that those are a result not of the two thousand and six court meeting but of that of a two thousand and eight agreement in which she had told mr hodges that she would accept a lower amount if he got her in which than she testified at trial in two thousand and ten he wasn't caught up so sheet terminated that agreement so it's a different agreement altogether notwithstanding let's assume for the for the purposes of argument that in fact there was an agreement now you have a fact pattern that is exactly like bliss there they said there's an agreement between the parties and so it's just backwards that i find there's agreement between the parties and if this if this honorable court says i find there was an agreement between the parties and we're going to look at that r this all started because the state of illinois got involved in in helping mrs mistah on in fact it all started because mr hodges was behind in child support so he's trying to play mr hodges the victim would in fact he was the one that all parties agree a trial that was behind child support continually whether it was the reduced amount or the other amount the other thing i'll submit to you and i'll close with this is that there was argument made that this was this was similar to the bad cop bad cop person martinez case because of the color of law there was never an order in this matter in the other case there were the actual court the understanding and in an as a as a relates to the record proceedings it'll show this when mr own and mr hodges left there was good there was no order that was going to be entered and mr hodges even testified under cross examination that when they laughed his statement to her was i'll take care of you i'll make good and so it wasn't until one when you mentioned a month later there was a lien filed it was because he didn't make good on that point so there was never an agreement that was entere was never an order that was entered into he just said that he would make good on catching up on the child support the other thing that i'll submit to you is that in order to believe in and bring this within the same thing line of cases badcock you would have to believe that the assistant attorney general lied to mr hodges and said i will have this order entered you have to make that jump in order to say that it was actually under color of law because if you say it was under color of law it had to have come from her mouth as the system attorney general and i think that's a large leap to may judge becker did even go that far in making that he just relied on the general confusion so i