the probate case and whether or not he can participate the probate case and make a claim for a spouse or share of the state within the probate case this case this is the cytokines case has been before this court the first at that time the court this court ruled that there was no a final judgment on the fourth wintry terror complaint is that a complaint that just a light was as before this court on appeal so the court remained in this case to the trial court after it found section three of that act which indicates that a premarital agreement must be writing and signed by both parties so forth without consideration it would be our position that that really is the only issues that was decided at the trial on the and that the only issue that was decided in the four splinter detainer complaint or case at trial was whether or not the supreme was executed by the parties there was there was no evidence about whether or not this was wrong terry or not and the second time  shatter section seven indicates that it's not to agreement would not be enforced is if the agreement was an unconscionable and it provides a specific test the court has to decide whether or not agreements unconscionable in the case that did not have or recently could have had a net with knowledge of the party or financial obligations of their party we believe that the first two elements of the cost milly test are certainly substantial issues in this case it's court looks at the  attesting share a list of such property intended all property owned by either of them individually as the daves executioner going forward remain that person's property if you look at the agreement there is no even general list of property that each person had come into the marriage there was no disclosure of even the general list that each party was keeping as their property an event that this financial dream was to be in force and so that's really calls into question both the first and second whether or not mr o'brian did have or recently could have had knowledge of his wife's assets coming into the mirror so i believe there are bella defenses under the illinois you know for premarital agreement act that were some bank accounts i believe but the total value of the state i believe is less than one hundred thousand dollars of that thousand dollars worth of i believe the house is worth about fifty or sixty thousand dollars this agreement and how does accord determine if those issues are identical well the case all says that if there is a question about whether or not those issues are identical the trial court should err on the side of not applying the doctrine of collateral stoffel there's an issue about at the trial the complaint for slander retainer was the fact that this was not my signature this is not my wife's signature these are forgeries on this agreement the only substantial evidence presented by the state at the trial on the complaint for forceful entry tator was testimony things going on here forcefully trinitarian one action and maybe you didn't have mr baggett who was the handwriting expert that mr o'brien had the reports from here today for that but that doesn't mean you still may not win in the state and round up with a third of the estate so you so that you have a choice with mr babbitt on bad if you win on that you get to renounce the will get a third of the state doesn't mean you get the house you understand so the court that point says no you don't have evidence here b another document not introducing of course some suggestion of a forgery the court not even considering the report of the forgers did compare signatures on its own he's obviously not a forgery i swear based upon the course on comparison of signatures the course lay with doesn't matter whether or not it could have been litigated if the state was trying to apply the doctor face judicata that applies to issues that not only were litigate the purpose seen but could have been litigated that's preclusion and that's much more limited than based judicata in that it only applies to issues that are actually litigated and that's the argument that the state break makes on this appeal is that well mr could be adjudicated within the probate case and could be defenses to the unfortunate of the international bereavement and that if you look at the state's brief they can't point to any single reference in the prevent mr o'brien from having his day in court on the these issues that could affect the enforceability of the engine up shortly but those are issues that he should be able to raise within the probate case because they certainly weren't litigated on the complaint for  taina the state so for some appeal also raises the issue of whether or not this was in a form of the fence that mr bryant should have raised at the trial court level that's not an issue that was ever discussed the trial court was not an simply having reports from handwriting experts are not admissible that that's hearsay they need to bring the actual handwriting expert into court have them testify about their conclusions he was a significant disadvantage in that case he walked into the complaint for forcible entry chain or believing that the only issue that would be litigated was whether or not he would be allowed to continue to reside in the home that he had no he's not on title that only when it would be to be able to continue to reside in the home the share to agreement he gives up his rights to renounce the will and try to claim espouse a share of the estate that's certainly not what he would have thought would have happened simply that again when he can stay at home that that he really had have his day in court to have him be able to raise any defenses to it for some of the it's enough agreement within the probate case when he's represented by counsel has the resources to be able to bring the him right experts and the court so our position would be earlier an army to the court earlier in the earlier appeal what i would say to the court today which is perhaps stating what i've said in my brief a little differently is it seems clear that in both the probate matter that's pending in douglas county involving this is back to state and in the forcible entry detainer case that was her earlier which involve both of these parties the central will he have the right to request the surviving spouse is awarded to have the right to ask that the case be under supervised administration and he would have a number of rights as a surviving spouse the administration of the estate in the state would not have a right to possession of the probably as normally would be the case due his position as it is there or surviving spouse that was only  by the validity of the pre nuptial agreement so i think to say the only thing that the trial court decided in the forcible entry and became a painter case was that the  was signed by the parties this is the point if you will the court had to be term and the trial court had to find that a valid prenuptial agreement existed in order to great possession of that my honest opinion is that i think has oftentimes happens today in our trial courts many people now appear pro se i think wrongly thinking that by doing a little research on the internet they can be as capable in court is as an attorney who has many years of training and experience and when our judges are trial judges see that and they made a ruling against those parties then sometimes there's a tendency i think for the trial judge to want to try to soften the blow a little bit to make it not seem so harsh and i would see say that it's my feeling that at least in part that may have been the reason that the judge carroll made the reason why he would have made those comments that i can see anyway as i was saying the the the woodsy of the prenuptial agreement that had to be a matter that was determined by the court in the probate matter so i think that was decided that's the same issue that would be facing the court in the probate case there is an identity of issues here these other matters that the appellate is talking had that opportunity to present way over evidence or theories he wanted to present to the court that he presented what he wanted to present it didn't include all these things and i think now parties came to my office they signed the document in front of my secretary of his new republic she notarized document indicating that they appeared in front of or signed the document so i mean i think there's no question that the documents properly executed was all that was required under the pleadings and the status of the case mr dempsey argues that these other matters were presented to the court they weren't there was no evidence presented well that was because none of those this honorable court to affirm the decision of the trial  or a party from simply raising those issues in subsequent issues that's the very essence of klaus stoppel and i think that essentially leads us quote to believe that the only conclusion is that there  additional issues lately enforceability of the internet filtering that should be able to be raised by mr o'brien in the probate case there's really two separate issues mr we are use that clearly is a valid agreement because if you present evidence that both parties signed it separate issues under the statute the valley agreement the only requirement is it be signed by both parties and there's no requirement for a consideration that's one issue the enforceability of a valid lease signed agreement is a completely separate issue and that's covered under section seven of the act it weighs out two specific situations where an agreement that has been signed by the parties may be unforeseeable and whether or not it's a valid reimages was signed is one issue and even if this court believes that that was the issue that was decided at the trial on the complete forceful interview tator that in any way does not preclude mr o'brian from contesting the enforceability of the international grievance under either  two situations set forth in chapter seven those are two completely separate issues so again you have described leaves that this is a valid it's enough for agreement because it was signed by both parties and it was in writing that in any way it does not in any way prohibit that we didn't get that far because there was the motion first off there was a motion there was no issue relating to whether or not as a matter of law those were issues that could be decided by it but of course so we never got to that point because the first time this case went up on appeal there was a motion for judgment on the pleadings of us filed by the state before we even got to raise those issues on the second time to get as much for summary judgment th