court and the enforcement of a petition to force an oral settlement agreement that was granted the force that was obviously filed by the wife basically i know you guys have all read the briefs and so i arrested and charged with attempted first degree murder from the middle of february it's all the current day he has either been incarcerated in the tesla county jail or the only illinois department of corrections he remains in the only department of corrections for another sixteen years after being found guilty of attempted murder that through a very big hindrance in this case subsequent to to all of this the on april nineteenth two thousand and ten the courts of pros all of my clients assets which a person went to  judge that injunction essentially crippled my client from a monetary assets camp which as this case proceeded the big issues and one of the focal points of the agreement that we're going to discuss was the payment of my client's attorneys fees we had the first day of trial in february some of it was scheduled for a second day of trial on march twenty third two thousand and one on march twenty first i was able to meet with mr baker up in the dixon correctional facility to prepare for that  on march twenty second approximately four thirty five pm my car my heart read murphy and myself were going through the final exhibits and we decided to call mr waking terry baker's attorney to see if there was any possible settlement that we had in th of those discussions i went back and forth for probably fifteen to twenty minutes and at the end of those discussions we had we had come to what we thought as the attorneys would be a reasonable resolution of the pending issues at that point i we were saying you know actually meant he was able to hear this is what you're going to hear this is what she's going to keep this is what you're going to receive this is what you're going to pay this is what she's going to pay at the end of that discussion it was a reluctant approval but it wasn't approval right so the next day we're going to court for the truck at the trial we tell the judge look we believe we have agreement the issue with was that even before we were able to recite the agreement mr wakeman and myself so on behalf of our parties had disagreements as receive up to twenty five thousand dollars from the sale and if you look at the transcript and almost the next sentence out of my mouth was no we are to receive the first twenty five thousand which is that which is a difference and then when you look at what the court actually going to enter a final judgment they comported with the exact terms that were read on to the court's record on march twenty third and if you look at that final judgment judge there's two blanks that are left in there that on a fee is going to be paid to my office and th than the fact well truth is in something but in this case the fees were coming out of your client's assets right that you know what was given the card twenty five twenty five thousand from the sale of his car was going to go to  did and as the case progressed and after that march twenty third day to him readily that that when we had an agreement on what's called the general principles of what everybody was going to do the real details and in the nuts and bolts of it were not agreed upon at all and and that's work on this in the future that if you look at the conduct of the parties after that march twenty third date mrs baker changed her position on the seas multiple times in fact my client changed his position on what he thought the terms of up here in front of you to say this or the original never been a force they can change their positions that you know what we have great will come back and we will agree that you guys are to get the first up to the person you will get the first twenty five thousand so they change their position from saying up to got twenty five thousand dollars from the car up to that so they changed the position again and if you look at what mrs baker even said when the job was going through ok is this your dream well i haven't had a chance to really revealing i agree to  intent you know and then the last thing she says is well i haven't really spent a lot of time looking at what was the size of this roof did about one point eight million dollars to create twenty five thousand dollars is what percentage of it's probably  when you look at the crux of what these agreements were on march twenty second that was a major portion of what the supreme court is how mr baker's fees were going to get paid so he would continue to have representation because at that time the last represent mr baker and he wanted to continue to have the representation because he was and present he wasn't he's not an attorney was not you know prepared to represent himself and so from that standpoint it is an essential element of the case and like the next morning you get a telephone call from from your attorney saying hey i just talked to the other side and you know here's what everyone's proposing what do you think and this is our one point eight million our case where he's got a lot at stake and so for  to court the next day mrs baker mr reagan were still trying to change the agreement that was personal property issues were being changed there was i said the terms of the vehicle were being changed the amount was being disputed you know miss baker testify herself that she had even really gone through it and understood what was going on when you look at the rest of the definition of about his loss you know it talks about these things or case the leak contrived agreement it doesn't get any more hasty than a fifteen minute phone call agreement now i don't know if i said that or not or her think you did i don't know i did not read my transcript but but i can tell you that i didn't think we had an agreement on the general terms be the issue became as i noted to you said just now that you and mr wakeman now have agreed on that you know what happened was on the august eighteenth hearing date when we filed our motion to amend the final judgment and if you enter a final deal or we showed up at the  general terms of the agreement were what we believed existed not the not the the real details of everything was happening in that one when that the days were going to be on march twenty third of the game clearly that that these two parties really and the attorneys themselves they did not agree on the understanding of how the agreement was to be drafted what the actual terms were and who was going to do what because in order to have a final appeal judge of the only thing that should happen is the specific details of the agreement mr wakely even noted in his testimony to the court that no one's read his documents that it needs to be taken to the parties and the attorneys to proofread the language to make sure this is the agreement so that general terms  cited but this specific details and then what ultimately ended up meaning the breakdown of those general terms happened and so on that day when we went in there on march twenty third where the general terms agreed upon i believe so but then has subsequent days followed even actually i'm going to say on that day they necessarily want because mr wakeman and i disagreed accord on what the language was and how it was to be written and if you think about it whether you get up to the first twenty five where you get the first twenty five or two different terms you have blanks represented by counsel and who agrees to a supplement of the case on the record in open court and back out of that supplement and have it vacated because he's had a change of mind i will address the issues in this appeal if i may in the reverse order that we presented them in our appleby's brief first car baker claims that the settlement was unconscio two percent split of the marital assets with terry baker receiving approximately fifty eight percent of those marital assets and barfed receiving forty two which mr murphy had that it was a reasonable settlement for this divorce case particularly because of the proven extent of dark baker's dissipates the second issue he has raised garth claims that  was a result of duress or who are essentially the same thing with the law yet there is no way legal or immoral crime back on the part of terry baker and under the invalidate a stuntman agreement there must be some illegal or improper conduct on the part of the opposing party not only is there none here none has even been a left by mr ba i submit that any emotional stress that mr baker may have been under was probably created by his own guilty conscious for his own misdeeds clearly there is no duress under in questioning mr dunn mr dunn sat in court at counsel table listen to the recitation of the terms and conditions of the oral settlement agreement and agreed that those were in fact the terms and conditions that were agreed upon in the saddam he also represented he had talked of this client and his client very to those terms he represented he had his client's authority to enter into the sudden agreement and that he had that advice this client in discuss with him the assets that's why abilities and the terms and that his client agreed in a proof to them that was all reflected on the record at the hearing on march twenty three two thousand and eleven before judge may and that the first twenty five thousand dollars of the sale price would be paid for baker's attorney murphy and done as a payment towards his attorney's fees with the balance of any proceeds then to be pay as part of the property one terry you know that was part of the recitation and he says well up to twenty five thousand dollars he says it was supposed to be twenty five dollars i doubt there could be  difference on that issue whether or not it's it was to be up to twenty five thousand or twenty five thousand as both are reflected in the rustication before the court but i am way that is not material difference at that point the attorney's fees that were incurred represented by mr diamond were something more than twenty thousand dollars so we know more than one and perhaps as much this twenty five that was  just what there could be a difference but more importantly that judgment was mop it was a minute and mr baker got exactly what he was asking for  what the parties agreed to it was amended to reflect that the car would be sold in twenty five thousand dollars would be paid from the sale of the car to murphy and done as a contribution towards  that was in fact done the mercedes with a back up the order then that he is appealing from the final judgment in this case was the order as of agree to because it was either up to twenty five thousand dollars was amended to give him exactly what he said the order was supposed to reflect and what it brings up was five thousand dollars in fact since the briefing in this case the car has been sold in murphy and dunn have been paid that full twenty five thousand dollars the point however being that after time both the order appeal from which has now been amended any issue about a blank being left in that order has been cured and the benefit of the part of mr baker asked for which was that and what transpired in the interim doesn't really make much difference because the final order in this case which is the judgment appeal from is exactly what their oral settlement agreement reflect which brings neithe vader got everything that he bargained for in the supplement agreement and therefore the issue of whether there was some agreement on all material terms i submit has now moved what he says the deal was is what he got it's been paid and there is no issue before this court because it's been completed the last issue i guess i want to raise is an issue that should be being away from the field by this for simply put our baker changed his mind about the son he wants to back out i submit there is no legal justification to vacate the settlement agreement they proposed to supplement mr dunn that spent six hours with the man they did and a half before the trial was scheduled in no fact really probably in the record about what took place in the conversation between bart maker and his attorneys except that mr dunn represented in open court the judge may or before she approached us that he had discussed all of this and he had his client for all i see and this is a gentleman who sits in prisons out with time on his hands in his nothing better to do but the blame all of his problems on his ex wife he hates insinuating to litigate this case against her is his only known form of recreation his excuse that i only had twenty minutes to consider this has no legal and if you look at what's actually said in there it's it's all of it talks about the parties had a guarantee on what was going to happen on this is how the car was going to be sold this is what was supposed to be the case it wasn't the end of the day so for m reached on march twenty second or march twenty third that's what this appeals of this appeal isn't about the amendment to the final judgment that was done on august eighteenth it's whether there was a meeting of the minds in an agreement to the essential terms of the braman and indeed the going to go to mr baker to her son and that was that was a big deal of the poor house that everything had to stop and and you know there was a disagreement on the home up that there were there were some issues around there that the car is just a good