even stopped paying child support almost twenty five years ago and then in two thousand and nineteen he received a notice and without emotion and without hearing a quadrille was entered and  asked the judge to reconsider and the judge really didn't conduct a hearing on the two latches than allow my client to present any evidence or even allow him to show how he was harmed by lashes or how he was prejudice by the entry of a quadrille thirty years after the dissolution of marriage judgment was entered in fact that's quadro was not accepted by the employer plan and pallies attorney submitted a nd one with a notice of motion and the trial judge did not vacate the st one didn't modify the st one but actually entered a nd one and has raised as a motion to dismiss that my appeal was not timely we filed a motion to reconsider the st quadro that was honored and a notice of appeal after that and then when the nd one was entered admitting that the st one was incorrect we also asked the judge to vacate the st one which he refused he didn't modify the st one he just entered a nd one and we did a motion to reconsider and a notice of appeal so i don't want to not respond to the motion to dismiss we think that the motion to dismiss is not well founded with respect to the argument on the quadrille itself and the errors that we think the judge committed the the language in the judgment  dissolution american marriages paragraph four and paragraph four is at best ambiguous it talks about the pension of mr or the appellant and it is sachs about it in terms of vested that tension and present value of seven thousand five hundred dollars that's one way of deciding how to divide up tension in divorce court and that certainly was a more standard way of doing it back in  seven the hunt for miller was was from a case that was decided not long before this case long enough i guess the lawyers probably knew what it meant but probably the participants didn't and this judgement again have conflicting language because it referred to the one formula and it also referred to the present vested cast value now my client was prejudiced and that's why we think la 's applies because after thirty years one of the attorneys the one that drafted this judgement perhaps is deceased the nd attorney is no longer remember anything about these proceedings and although  looked for his file he didn't have any records and he had no way of giving any supporting testimony for the fallen as to what that language mentor or how it came to be my client also after thirty years had  i'm sorry he did offer to pay his wife that seven thousand five hundred dollars or half of it in in dealing with the other property elements of the judgment they did have discussion but then after another five or six years his child support obligations ceased he had no further obligations that he was aware of to is x wife and they really had little contact this the judge judgement w or the divorce was an eprom bonus but afterwards when the wife remarried days they stopped communicating at all but i think the prejudice issue was my client certainly would have been able to show evidence that trouble understanding if that's a case half of seven thousand five hundred dollars or seven thousand five hundred dollars was never actually given to the former spouse well judge i think that's not one hundred percent clear either because after thirty years nobody has records of what happened in fact when judge garcia reviewed this case or or ruled on on the entry of the quadros he didn't even have the case file it was an archives and it was never pulled up for him and mr the of the of the original pelleas attorney submitted an altered copy of the judgment it had writing on it that wasn't in the original judgment and in fact the writing was not correct and accurate and i then furnished the the court a certified copy of the judgment that wasn't altered or changed by hand and i don't mean anybody did it on purpose but the copy that they used was not the actual judgment because it had some pen and ink markings on it that really called in the question in my mind how those came to exist and again with one lawyer dead in the other one not knowing anything about it we couldn't even raise that as an issue of how her copy of the judgment had other language on it but i think my client did have a buyout of the residents of merrill residence and he also made other out that's a burden question but when you say there's an ambiguity there is a formula and it's pretty clear what the formula is based on the case  and it was even a rom about the time your clients got divorced right it was judge and i say it was it was fairly new at the time not that new but but when i started it completely and it's not clear and i think what might be back up the hans formula was not a complex formula it's about what what it is and is specifically referred to in the judgment but judge it also on stage six i think it is paragraph four with regard to the property settlement it doesn't refer to the present castle you the pensions that has nothing to do with the hans formula and that's quite naturally it has nothing to do with the hunt for gala what they were saying is at that present time the pension had x value but that had nothing to do with the hu parties here to agree that joseph as a pension plan with his employer i b m and that the approximate present value of that pension is seven thousand five hundred why is that not an appropriate way to divide the pension between a husband and wife when they get divorced if we know what the present cast value is give her the three hundred and seventy five three thousand seven hundred and fifty if if if you're asked to do that they chose to go on and talk about dividing  well it's price it's quite possible that nobody understood the one dollar formula as applied to how much she got out of his pension if they weren't married the whole time he was in the pension and if that wasn't clear in the judgement which i don't think it is it could be that the pension plan wasn't divided five thousand and fifty dollars but she got fifty percent of the marital portion and it doesn't say the marital forecast in a seven thousand five hundred so if you use the formula of the it's to come up with the that fraction the number of months in the pension and the number of months and months that they're married it could be that that formula would have merely reduced from seven five hundred dollars the wife's share to less than half but that wasn't clear in the in the judgment and it was unclear actually until maybe the nd quadrille was i don't even know if it was clear when the nd part was entered but the point that i really am saying is judge garcia did not give my client an opportunity to have a hearing and decide whether the last is applied and st of all if lance is applied we wouldn't be fighting over what this language means but if last is doesn't apply then what does this language mean because there certainly is an ambiguity in my opinion and and we tried to call that to the attention of judge garcia judge garcia  trial lawyer at that time who said that the pension plan approved the quadrille in fact later the client pension plan disapprove the quadro said it didn't have the appropriate language in it and rejected it which led to then the valid court order and i asked the judge to vacate the st one and the judge refused to vacate the st one so we have two quadros one is honored by the pension plan and one isn't but what happens if the court reverses this  decision and says a back the trial court does the st french quadro that's still floating out there it's not been vacated who knows the pension plan may start paying of that one but my point is simply my client didn't have an opportunity to present his argument on how he was prejudiced by this how this judgement was in fact which divorce course talks of marital settlement agreements of contract contracts are interpreted evidence when there's an ambiguity and my client was deprived of the ability to really have any parole evidence as one lawyers to add one more doesn't remember anything in the judge's long since retired who entered the judgement but by the way the court reporter and so you couldn't even get a transcript of the court proceeding where the judgment of dissolution of marriage was approved parties testified it was entered heard most were never transcribed no one can transcribe her notes we tried to get those so we have no record of the judgement being entered and what happened and who testified to what thirty years later we don't have one worries that another lawyer doesn't remember anything and my client frankly had a seventy four is not not really versed in what happened thirty years ago when he got divorced so it seems to me that latches must be considered and nd the judge should conduct a full and complete hearing on whether my client is prejudiced what the language of the contract means and how it should be interpreted and without two of the main parties the the the lawyer the draft of the in the lawyer that represented my client at the time it's really hard to to address the intent of the parties when they entered into this contract and specifically on page i guess is space nine the language in paragraph four regarding expenses again it recites the present cash value and i think i can for the life of me in my practice present value is even if they used to hunt for no will sometimes pensions are even vested when parties get divorced and it's only later when they get that vested and so there is no present cas i think i literally think in this particular case although we don't have any evidence of it that it wasn't vested and so there wasn't really a present value at the time this is a a deferred payment pension plan it's not the it's not a  there's no other mention of any sort of offset to pay miss gavin for that thirty three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars should be entitled to so even if you do find that clause to be kind of a big us if you look at the rest of the doc even it's clear that they did intend to use the hunt formula because there's simply no reason for them to have that seven thousand five hundred dollars in there and then not have it somewhere else if they did intend to split  in forcing some sort of right in the nd part is that you have to have precious now this get it in wait for quite a bit of times you enter this quadro however i don't think that there is any material prejudiced mr mr gavin to try and enter the quad it's a situation where you know he is making the assumption that the only way to challenge it is to have that quadro attempt to be entered i don't think that's the case as far as there's another argument that they made about predators the mr gammon somehow relied on this income and made decisions based on his retirement that will negatively impact now because he's not receiving that full portion that ms gattung is now receiving and that also kind of goes against what the actual document the n s a says that ms gannon doesn't have to do anything to trigger this right there was testimony from mr geffen saying that she never told him that she waived her right to the pension so if he's not just because he relied on the income that he wasn't entitle to doesn't mean that he was prejudiced now my argument is that once the trial court denied that original motion reconsider that was the final appeal but were the only thing left to do was to enter that quater it should be held against my client that he didn't system cooperate because he wasn't ever asked a system cooperate it just was run on him thirty years after the judgment was honored the other part is the prejudice if if he knew there was a quadro entered when he retired he might not have retired at that time when he retired he assumed he was getting his entire pension because that quadro had not been entered and it was fifteen years after he retired that he finally submitted maybe even seventeen years latter later that that she she's the mrs quadro without warning without been yet ok there hasn't been yet i don't know if you're going to consider lances to be applicable should she ask for one in the future or that she's barred from asking for one now since she's asked for a prejudice because he retired when he did not know he was going to have to give this money to his wife from his stance and had he stayed longer if you do if you really do apply the one formula would mean her share was going down as his pension went up so if he'd stayed in another fifteen years instead of getting a quarter the pension she may have only gotten a six of his pension and that might have been something he could have intelligently considered and planned and dealt with had a quadrille been timely entered again there was a transaction with the sale of the house and there was a buyout there was a contribution to college expenses and my client's because no quadro been entered pay a greater portion than he was ordered to pay so there are a lot of detrimental reliance by my clients on the fact that she hadn't gotten a quadrilateral and had been seeking any of pension he made a lot of decisions in that fifteen years after the divorce after he retired based on the fact that she had filed a quadro handsaw part of a suspension so he is lot and she is required to show that there is some excuse for her delay in act so thank you very much i'd ask that you reverse this decision in here and send it back for a hearing that you sent it to a different trial judge