when she did she changed her insurance from the plant she'd been under for many many years to an economic policy this almost tri monthly premium almost triple the monthly pay by the trial judge thought that this provision was absolutely that it that he had to face fraction of the changed she never bothered to do that but many years ago someone told her that the higher premium the better the engine was made many years prior to her decision to make a change yes agreeing to pay for it but in this case in this case i don't think the court really has to go there for i mean the the record is to the her insurance premiums and the his legal arguments he's always creative and enjoy cases with pat but i think what's most important in this matter is to focus on what we're really considering which is the contract between the parties concisely quote husband who will pay waves monthly health insurance premiums during his natural life until such time as wife remarries or cohabitate there's no confusion there that doesn't say husband will pay the policy that's in existence at the time of the divorce it doesn't mean it what the average will or shall be it doesn't state that in the event the pay and if there had been sung extrinsic term that they wish to put in place we have our appellate court and the precedent that we follow that sa but he did not and the facts of this case with all due respect to mr murphy when she came back from south carolina and this is in the record she came back and do  mr franciscans home to speak with him about these plans and about why he had not been paying what in her understanding of the judgment he should have been paying he wouldn't speak with  dealing in our perspective she needed and effort to communicate with him to discuss with him and she made the election ashley had all on post judgment with this policy he didn't get it in trial also in the record that the premium had gone up during from point of the judgment and since this election had occurred and he admitted that he should beginning i think a lot of this is not relevant to the discussion the fear of dealing issues because we have a contract we have if you wish to pursue a modification or even clarification you can do so with the core if you believe that there is a disagreement between the parties as to an interpretation of the provision that requires a written petition to be filed with the court to bring that issue to the court's attention one cannot just simply avoiding compliance when they don't agree with the interpretation there was no petition filed by mr  now i wasn't around as drafted i don't know why that language is then but he could have filed a petition he could have asked for clarification but he did not use  judgment and as a result found him to be in indirect civil contempt and that included the inquiries under the old policy and he said that he had not paid him cruise that is correct that's correct and that was after he received a letter from my office on his franciscans behalf pointing out to him the amounts he and paid the amounts he had failed to pay and why she felt he was in violation giving him an opportunity to respond again under this good faith and fair dealing with litigation entire that too was an exhibit that was presented in trial to give him the opportunity to say i don't agree with your position because let's talk about how to fix the problem but he ignored now as well although he admitted under oath at trial that you knew he had an obligation to pay he knew he shouldn't have been paying something he knew he shouldn't and increases that he did so it's not about who gives a pig because the contract doesn't say that and all all those judgments to the point in time with the rule show cause miss frances been through t r s through her union leader even in retirement have followed what had been recommended and she did not testify that she did it because he had to i pulled some  believed it was the best coverage she did in fact and she she did minutes she's not the most knowledgeable in the world about the coverage but and she didn't testify that one hundred percent the marriage with mr francis going he also had the cross and blue shield which picked up the difference so it was not burdensome to her so when this divorce occurred she maintained the same policy and it did peg reasonably well but she did have additional expenses out of pocket that she said they were really significant it's ok i paid for it when the big deal but they didn't pay one hundred percent the big difference that she talked about was that the end of the plan which is six hundred dollars a month past the one thousand two hundred dollars individual deductible health insurance coverage plan with her medical circumstances she had a stroke right before one of our hearings and we had to continue when she healed her testimony again going back to some of the things she said you know i had to have insurance i had his insurance covered we as well i felt protected then i don't feel protected now so if it's not one mr francis understood and knew that he would be from time to time responsible for the creases in the inevitable premiums but here's what happened he ul him but he lost my cause his testimony was i don't even know how to block a call don't even know how to do the trial judge never