and equitable stoppel are valid affirmative defenses in this case first latches bars the wife's claim to the husband's pension and it's clear in this case that both elements of lapses of satisfied first there was certainly a lack of d'elegance circumstances can such a delay be described as a diligent assertion of her claim the parties were divorced in january one thousand nine hundred four and the husband retired in jail in two thousand and one the wife admitted that she had heard on and off for almost a decade that the husband had retired however the date of her actual knowledge of when husband retired is irrelevant because retirement status is not necessary for a cold row to be entered it's common practice in caswell county and a good thousand and twelve which in and of itself was an improper petition she didn't file a motion for entry of quilt row until may two thousand and thirteen nineteen years after the parties and forced and almost twelve years after the husband's retirement had com this is a serious lack diligence by the wife as to the second element of lapses there is certainly a serious injury or prejudice as a result of that lie mr warner in this case faces simply financial ruin he will lose almost all of his assets and a reduction of income by fifty four percent to one that is simply insufficient to support his standard of living he lives a very modest lifestyle and has budgeted his finances was that you had to contact the employer get a get a statement from them as to what the anticipate the pension to be and still file that will draw based upon that information from the employer this is one or did not do any of after the first we heard as she indicated that she wanted a portion of her pension was nineteen years after the purchase of course in this case the wife has been and continues to be in a comfortable financial state subsequent to the divorce i haven't heard of property totaling approximately five hundred thousand dollars she was granted a life estate interest in a trust and she collects social security has been receives his monthly pension and some minimal net rental honor he and that and that's because it's a good time probably for me to bring us up mr warner adamantly concerns that the parties agreed that if the wife received an inheritance that the husband which keep his retirement  intent of that parties in referencing that oral agreement is quite plain i'm especially if we take into consideration the language entered in the first judgment for dissolution of marriage which was entered in one thousand nine hundred one and then shortly vacated there after that in that judgments there was an however that language also heard that general principle such that the parties agreed otherwise the word however in the actual term is an up marital settlement agreement like the first in the second sentence such that they shall be to and it indicates that there's a possibility other than what was described in the first sentence as the parties were clearly taking into consideration if you might not receive a portion of the pension and own house and determine it's a s well it doesn't specifically say that way it doesn't specifically say who shall notify who retirement or who shall notify the who of an inheritance the amount thereof it's silent as to what factors the trial course is taking the consideration if someone did bring review and that's another reason why we think that we need to look at the intent of the parties in making this agreement in knight in the one thousand nine hundred four judgment for dissolution of marriage there is no express content such that if she would she would not receive a portion of the pension if she received an inherent sense well and you're getting them from the word review yes or and also the intent of the parties testified as to what he believed he was signing he was of the understanding that the oral agreement was properly and compassed in the one thousand nine hundred four judgment and you testified that it was the spirit of the agreement essentially that both parties would end up in a somewhat equal position in their later years for a casual purpose and the conduct of the parties over the past nineteen years is such that the parties are in a somewhat equal position right now judgment they've both been acting in accordance with that agreement that was made in one nine hundred ninety four their children together grandchildren together they have a relationship where they still attend holiday functions with one another for many many years and they're divorced and so yes his retirement status was discussed and her presence on his collecting collection of the pension was discussed in her presence been when fall in this case of approximately one hundred forty thousand dollars and her monthly income would skyrocket to about three thousand dollars a month again the parties would be moved from a somewhat equal position to wife being placed in a far better financial situation this is clearly not an equitable outcome the wife ran out of money from her inheritance from the five hundred thousand dollars and so you know her and that of the past twenty years indicated on however that her intent was not to assert her claims  and the actions of the actions of both of the parties over the last twenty years is proof that the underlying intent of the marital settlement agreement was such that if wife received inheritance she would not receive a portion of the pension again the inten hundred four property distribution was so that an equitable living standard would be achieved by both parties in that later years life expecting to receive a meaningful inheritance she did receive that meaningful inheritance and the parties logically had reason that she would not need a question on the husband's action on the intent of the parties was fairness to each in terms of future cash flow and that agreement is what governed both of the parties actions for almost twenty years the pension benefits awarded pursuant to a divorce decree or property in limitations kicking in and has been faces financial ruin the actual policy underlying award of latches is that courts are reluctant to come to the aid of a party who is knowingly slept on his rights to the detriment of the opposing party at the trial court's level in the event that this court disagrees an obvious that will stop or would not be able to be taken into consideration by honors however we do believe that mr martin reasonably relied on mrs mourners and action and making a claim on and wife by her actions remaining i'm all for nineteen years induce the husband to rely on conduct and his reasonable reliance was to his detriment had he not relied on the fact that she didn't file a petition for welder out within even those first seven years after their divorce before his retirement or shortly after his retirement and he would be facing financial ruin today his reliance was reasonable especially when taking into consideration present tense and their dissolution of marriage and a company moral agreement that both parties wanted to be fair and take into consideration the cashflow of each party in the years the you i mean writers equitable estop existence of an argument between the parties it would be an equitable to grant the relief or asked as to do so substantially rewards the wife who should not be having rewarded for her and excusable the way she should be stopped because she induced husband to rely on their three men and he did reasonably rely on her conduct it's reasonable to interpret your honour's from the interaction of both of the parties and the language in the marital settlement agreement that there was an agreement as to the contingency regarding distribution of the pension based upon my proceeding in inheritance the arrangement was and continues to be equitable for both parties by complying with the agreements and until she depleted the majority of her inheritance and she now seeks to retract that agreement respectfully contend that this course will not allow such a substantial inequity the standard isn't that great but it's really has to do with what is fair and equitable under all circumstances and we do believe because only have the use of judy's money for all those years and she didn't have to use that money it would be fair that he should ever reasonable interest review so there's delay on his part it to some extent that he he perhaps using the word stop or he should be a stopped from going back in time because he sat on his right his right to read the route for the all three of the record he says he never discussed it with jimmy he never brought up he never raised and if there's no i mean they aren't there was email back then or letters no knows the emails these people had no contact with each other except they would go to a family get together but he says it was never discussed he never notified her that he really retire she said she heard rumors instead you like your isp off home but then again her and is she in this case i suppose to the last she's an equitable stoppel they both fail because there's no prejudice to honey at the worst craziness is he has to pay back the stoppel so there's no real horror or prejudice attorney to not have to pay back judy what she rightly should have had we think he should be with interest so if anything if he has to pay back the principle he still is the beneficiary by not  this as an effort to not have to pay due back the money that he's been benefiting from for fourteen years so if it really ruin you're seeking fairness equity that judy who didn't get her share of his pension benefits now be allowed to continue to get her pension benefits as we sit here today there is no rule one effect a warning for her interest she are be getting her share of earnings pension hoping it would never come back so he continued to enjoy the money investor money apparently and and yes a lifestyle that spending ten upon her money and not close to it or her because he would have to pay back to her the money that he's been using know but that just is a vehicle to implement a property exception of child support we don't have a child support interest in this case we have an interest in a pension equitable considerations govern the award of an interest in the dissolution proceeding in a situation where interest delay cannot be rewarded with an interest allocation the decision to award interest on the dissolution judgement as to a pension is a discretionary matter for the trial court and if this court upholds that mr horner owes a retroactive payment to mrs warner an award of interest should not a lot of emphasis was placed at the child level and in the judge's order on whether the husband notified wife that he had retired and however again the date of the husband retirement has no effect whatsoever on the wife's ability to claim an interest in the husband's retirement benefits when asked why she waited until april of two thousand and twelve to initially bring her claim the wife stated because he was supposed to have notified me for one settlement agreement requiring husband to notify wife the date of his retirement not properly addressed at the hearing was whether wife notified husband of her receipt of an inheritance the amount there of or the date of her notification to  finds from the language that it was husband's obligation to file for review of the pension then it's equally incumbent upon the wife to notify husband that she had received an inheritance and the wife made no attempt to do so in this case pension or the inheritance issue which only substantiates mr horner's claim there was no agreement and the true intent of the parties was that she would not receive more from the pension if she received an inheritance their conduct tells us that their conduct  set of properties that he owns he has no savings account he has no for a long keg or ira or any other time cycle retirement he has no medical insurance because he's uninsured all the only money that this man has to his name is his monthly pension income and a couple of these houses that are quite modest that he owns this serious prejudice is that he faces financial ruin not just that he would have to pay her one hundred forty thousand dollars we have to look at all of the facts the child support he says that mr bodie is referring to here is a very important public policy along with that we don't have child support policy in this case and we have to take into consideration that it's not just a large lump sum of money that would be hard for anyone to pay back especially for mr horner it financially ruined him for the rest of his life he faces in a medical bills he's had hip replacements knee  in the interest of the standard on the issue of interest is cited under the family case that interest should be allowed where warranted by equitable consideration and should be disallowed if such an award would not comport with justice and equity we believe that interest is appropriate by equitable principles and to not award judy interest on her money i wouldn't appoint with justice and equity because that would continue to reward money and give him the benefit of the use of judy's money over fourteen years judy's been denied with friends been rightly hers for thirteen years and all she wants is to be paid back with a reasonable sum rate of return to do the act wouldn't would not be punitive to ernie because he's not punished because the fact that he's got used to his money i suppose he would see that as punishment but just to make him pay back money that hubris wrongfully retained over the past several years isn't punitive to her to him it's equitable and accordingly there should be a reasonable interest rate to objectively group the benefit of the money she should have had over the last fourteen years i understand the standard is abuse of discretion and i think the equity and