of the court's determination the trial court's terminations with respect to the class cation of pieces of farmland yes marital property i would like to address the pension issues first and i or has a defined benefit pension i think he has received from his employer the illinois agriculture association at the time he began receiving his pension which he fact receiving and which at the time of trial was in payment status he was receiving roughly thirty two hundred dollars a month it's interesting to note and i will love speak to this point in just  time of the court's ruling in december she was still working she was not receiving her pension any amount of tension that shoot that is divided by the court is divided by a drop to essentially a garnishment or a portion of money is just simply sent to the other party but it doesn't have the same effects as a as a qualified mr relations or the problem with this now that didn't take into account the fact that mr sachs or had worked for it portion of time before the marriage or at least had certain pension benefits that had accrued before the marriage it didn't take into account the fact that one judge koeppen made that ruling mr sachs who was already receiving his pension misconception was not receiving a pension indeed  is sex or could in theory we use mr sexers for receipt of monies from her pension by continuing to work as she may still be working today i do not know there but at the time of the divorce she was working she was not receiving her pension benefits at the time of the divorce mr sacks who was his pension was in payment status and he was had been infect  fail and be fused to consider a substantial piece of the pension puzzle for the pension high and that was mr sacks or surviving in this case i don't know the answer to that question but let me just respect fully some suggestion that it makes no difference because what the the problem here is the fact that judge gramlich in his ruling essentially said oh well i'm very suspect about the surviving spouse awards because life is unpredictable which while it is that is true that life is do not know the specific amount but if it reduces benefit i believe it was roughly well i won't say it did we do says benefit and there was testimony i believe in the record that it reduces benefit of the exact amount consider it and it's not correct to say by the way without judge gramlich consider it because he mentioned it in the december order he mentioned it only in the december order to disparage and to time of reading his will they will say to my brother joe always thought i would never mention him in my will i would never mention him in my will hello joe the fact that he's mentioned doesn't mean that he gets anything fact the judge gramlich mentioned if there really this and his language was very clear the court has always been suspect of pension valuations because of the unpredictability of life expectancies involved then he went ahead to say the pensions can be divided by qualified orders which is really not  true if you divide it by a qualified order and you don't include the fact that there was a hundred and nine thousand dollars surviving spouse award you're not providing it fairly let me give you another example i know it's very hard to case this is a piece of property that needed to be valued or at least not treated as if it didn't exist well counsel let me ask you this question i know that you've indicated you believe the judge intended to do a fifty fifty split isn't it possible that the judge felt that a fifty fifty split otherwise other than the pinching was employable is it that possible i'm not  it was the judge's intention to provide them equally under the circumstances in the factual circumstances of the case that could not be accomplished until such time as both parties at a minimum were in an equal payment and equal status with respect to their pension because if a pension if a pension is divided if s and when received and one the provision is made now if eight yes it is that the answer is yes that if you have that type of a pension of for example the state of illinois pension if a judge says  want to buy pensions equally one party isn't receiving their pension and the other party has yet to receive their pension that you can't you don't really have and if it hasn't when we see things well actually three things the equal status of the two pensions the equal receipt of the two pensions one receiving his pension beast yet receiving her pension and finally the complete failure to include an asset in the pension calculations valued at over one hundred thousand dollars have how would you do the the valuation of her state of illinois pension which i believe was in the range of two hundred forty or two hundred fifty thousand dollars those two numbers came to about three hundred seventy thousand dollars mr sachs or pension at that time and at the time of in december of two thousand and eleven was thirty two hundred dollars a month it was in payment status thirty two hundred dollars a month time to this life expectancy which i believe was ten or eleven or twelve years it came out to roughly the same figure so it was our suggestion to judge gramlich death at that point using those figures and applying that to this situation but essentially the pensions wife he gets his pension she gets her it to me the immediate offset approach includes the fact that a court can say all right you're receiving a pension of three thousand dollars a month i'm going to avoid the other side sufficient marital property to up to compensate for that and then there will be no pension payments made to the eye to deal with the other side i guess one of the problems are not problems but one of the difficulties in a case like this is divorces more often occur before the parties receive their pensions and at a younger age and under those circumstances a court says well husbands pensioners fourth presently has a boy and that value of let's say one hundred thousand dollars the wife has no pension at the present time so i'm going to award the wife one hundred thousand dollars with the property to up boxset what i'm what the husband's pension benefit is or the wife has a pension vary to fifty thousand i will work for something else that's that to me is part of the offset  theory i'd like to get to up since my i got the first one done i'd like to move on to the second issue which is the court's terminations that the hundred twenty three acres of farmland was marital property  out right in the middle of a sentence as your sense of how unless the property is one of the statutory exceptions and in this case there was not a period there was and in this case the statutory her and his brother received an undivided one happened years his brother began a partition bill then purchased during the marriage purchased his brother's interest in that  out it took five years to bring this to trial and you know reviewing the records you can see multiple discovery requests probable exchange of information but it trial bill i would assume realizing that since he purchased that farmland and there was a presumption that it was feral property that then he would have the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing having us and you would think and this applies to count as well you would think then that if he's claiming that he received dollars from mother's estate or father's estate around susan's estate it doesn't matter that there would have been documentary evidence offered a grandmother who was in the position to determine his credibility and to determine the way to be given to his testimony was amaze that there wasn't anything offered in support of this accordingly obviously he found that bill didn't overcome the presumption of marital property and hadn't proven that he is that the one half a percent he purpose was and so on some to support us now your honor in mr shipman didn't address that let me talk about the attorney's fees judge gramley rightly corrected me in my final against it was in advance from the merger will say he refused however to send essentially a war the one hundred fifty three thousand eight hundred out and judy the twenty seven thousand was essentially that bill's share or the hundred fifty three thousand was an advance in the normal stage to be included in this problem and judy ate some difference because of that dislike twenty seven thousand dollars was in her  so you are with regard to particularly the latter three issues raised by the atlanta in this particular case i see absolutely no reason whatsoever to reverse judge gramlich and judge open in the determinations of me certainly equally to the surviving spouse portion of bills and then when he was charged with was the responsibility of the new facts of the case is to make a fair and equitable distribution and appropriate the vision is for the first was that all of those pension during the marriage wasn't their portion that was or prior to the marriage yes ma'am and actually it's sort of interesting this record here with work before the nurse the total number of months so there is a manner in which we can do that and it is for i think it's relatively simple we do it all the time so you believe both parties would accept that calculation as far as to if i remember the facts of that were the trial court made a mistake in the reason it was reversed and remanded on engine point was that the evidence was if i remember there correctly and we're not suggesting that at all we're suggesting that it's a relatively minor problem that can be handled in a manner than which we typically hamlet with reference to the appropriate order so you basically what i think and what i'm saying is just that it was up to judge ramle within his sound discretion to determine what's fair just to bill's a retirement plan and he decided in his discretion that this approach using these orders would be fair and equitable and that's what within his discretion as to the first before you get on the something else i bills monthly benefit was reduced by the survivors files i knew it and sort of common sense tells somebody they were someplace but there's no evidence in the record to support that there's really no evidence in the record to d it is the equivalent of two that bill can't buy i mean we don't know one where the other in response to your question we don't know whether or not he can recruit that difference if she should create a cease and nonetheless your honor the question is we've got a record before this court and the question is the judge gramlich refuses discretion and i would respectfully request that the court sustain his decision on all four points that are raised on  then i am asking that the court if there is a remain and specifically directed only relates to only relates to the issue of a fair division of basically the reason this concerns me is that when we were doing our post trial motions in front of judge told basically you know i quoted the famous philosopher billy crystal who sa no no i mean by the court making its decision yes whether or not tied shows to a lack of survivor annuity during the marriage is irrelevant to the allocation of the cost of the annuity in the judgment of the solution i think there was a reference to it y in the same way judge gramlich made reference to it by not considering it as a piece of marital property i mean i don't know what the trial court did i know what the record says and the record says this surviving spouse benefit is value actually were for follow i guess the word is final through the marital count the parties and the court this court essentially i believe said that up yes they didn't really change their place and they didn't really change their the life they treated as as as non marital property they had separate accounts and somehow to suggest that because mr saxon testified to it but didn't bring in a lot of paperwork somehow disparages that testimony and makes