Woman Demands to Split Ex Assets As If They Were Married

number DF2505006. Counsel, will you please announce for the record? >> Abby Ewing and Stephanie Mathern on behalf of Victor Vescovo. >> And Richard Campia on behalf of Monica Vescovo. >> All right, will those who intend to testify please raise your right hands? Do you all swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give will be the truth and the whole truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. We are here set for a motion for new trial after a bill of review was denied. The moving in this case is Mr. Vescovo. Prior to going on the record, we had some conversation about um no presentation of exhibits. There will all be argument. So, the court has set aside 15 minutes aside for the attorneys to argue. You may or may not call your witnesses. You know, that's completely up to you. And attorney Ewing or is it you said Mathern? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would either of you like to make an opening statement? >> Yes, your honor, I would. I would actually just like to present argument rather than give an opening statement if I could use my time for argument and then reserve some of that time for rebuttal to Mr. Campia's argument. That would be perfect. Thank you. >> Sure, go ahead. >> Okay. Will may please the court, we filed um a motion for new trial and the crux of the motion is that we'd like this court to grant a new trial to allow for a complete record to be made um concerning um evidence that goes to every required element of the bill of review. And just to provide context for this court, um this This involves the suit involves the bill of review, involves the review of an order um that was granted October 8th, 2020 um for Monica Vescovo's name change. She's changed her name from Monica Alabaiu to Monica Vescovo. She filed an application. She appeared before um Judge [clears throat] Cook said that time and um for a hearing and then obtained the name change. Something uh what [clears throat] what what Monica Vescovo did not disclose during that proceeding, not in her application, not during the prove-up hearing um was that she apparently believed that she was married to Mr. Vescovo. So, she was there asking for her name to be changed to Monica Vescovo, but did not disclose to the court that she believed she was married to Victor Vescovo. Um that, Your Honor, deprived the court of being able to determine the the purpose for the name change. And oh, I want to talk about that in a minute. The but the purpose, Your Honor, was improper. But the improper purpose was never disclosed, so it could never be considered by the court. And it was also not disclosed to my client, Mr. Vescovo. And there's a really big distinction here, Your Honor, that I want to make and that's that's Mr. Vescovo discovering the name change occurred versus Mr. Vescovo discovering discovering the purpose, the fraudulent purpose for the name change. And I'll get to that in a minute, but I just wanted to bookmark that for you. So, um on October 8th, 2020, the name change order is granted. On April 10th, 2023, um and this is found in petitioner's exhibit eight that was admitted at the trial, Monica discloses for the first time when she sues Mr. Vescovo alleging they are married the improper purpose of the name change, namely so she could lend credibility to her alleged belief that she had been married to Mr. Vescovo since June 10th, 2018. Again, she had never disclosed not to this court, not to Mr. Vescovo prior to April 10th, 2023 the purpose or one of the purposes of her name change request so that the court could in exercising its gatekeeping function decide whether the name change should be granted. And by the way, as part of that process, could the court could have also gotten in contact, asked Mr. Vescovo to bring Mr. Vescovo to the name change prove up hearing or a subsequent hearing so that she the court could hear from him about, well, do you think that you're married? And ask all of these questions. Even though he's not a party to the underlying name change proceeding, he is still entitled to participate in that proceeding, to provide testimony in that proceeding, and in fact, your honor, there are several cases out of the courts of appeal where a name change proceeding courts have asked non-parties to appear and provide information just so that the court could conduct this gatekeeping function. So, [snorts] your honor, on April 10th, 2023, the statute of limitations for Mr. Vescovo to file a bill of review uh so that this fraudulently obtained order could be reviewed by the court and reconsidered in light of the now known improper purpose accrued. Uh, it's a 4-year statute of limitations for bills of review, Your Honor. The April 10th, 2023 is when the um the the bill of review statute was triggered or it accrued, began accruing. This bill of review was filed well within that 4 years. And so, Mr. Vescovo's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations as Mr. Piagentini argued at the trial. Now, one of the other things I want to talk to you about, Your Honor, is just this idea of standing. So, briefly, um in order to a threshold matter for uh bringing a bill of review is you have to have standing to bring that bill of review. And Mr. Piagentini and I agree, I think we cited the court to the same case, but to have standing to bring a bill of review, a person does not have to be a party to the prior judgment. It doesn't matter that Mr. Vescovo was not a party to the underlying proceeding. What they need to have is a then-existing interest that was prejudiced by the name-change order. And that certainly exists here, Your Honor. Mr. Vescovo had an interest and was prejudiced by his name being used by Ms. Vescovo for the purpose of lending credibility to a false claim of marriage. He didn't know that this is what she was doing or why she was asking for the name change again until April 2023. But this gives him standing. It's his name, and now we know she wants to use it to lend credibility to a false claim of marriage. So, Mr. Vescovo establishes standing to bring the bill of review. Then we look at the elements of the bill of review itself, your honor. And the first is that Mr. Vescovo have a meritorious claim. Um the claim must not be barred by the statute of limitations, which I just addressed. Um and here Mr. Vescovo's claim is that Ms. Vescovo is seeking the name change for an improper purpose to create a false impression of marriage. Now, your honor, your the court's role in in an adult name change is a a serious role of gatekeeping because there are not other parties to the name change proceeding, the court has to um you know, ask questions, receive information, and receive, you know, truth from the person seeking the name change. The statute itself is um found in section 45.102 of the um Texas Family Code. It's 102 and 103. And what those statutes say that's important is that the court must consider the reason for the name change. Also, the name change must be in the interest of the public. And importantly, our courts of appeal have said that a person's right to change her name by court order is not absolute. Thus, it is generally held that an application for a change of name may be properly denied where the change is sought for a fraudulent purpose or where the change of name will result in the invasion of the rights of others. And your honor, had Ms. Vescovo told the court that she believed she was married to Mr. Vescovo at the time she made this application, the court could have properly considered whether she should then have therefore have the name, you know, Monica Vescovo without showing a marriage license, without hearing from Mr. Vescovo. The court could have exercised its gatekeeping functions and its discretion. The name change statute is not a rubber stamp. And this idea that simply because the name change statute doesn't did not require Miss Vescovo to give notice to Mr. Vescovo that she was asking for his last name means that that he has no standing, he has no claim is is absurd. Because if nobody has it it would basically mean that nobody, Your Honor, has standing to seek review of an adult name change order that was procured for an improper purpose when the improper purpose is withheld from the trial court, preventing the trial court from considering that purpose. That cannot be the case, Your Honor. Um additionally, the fact that she did withhold this improper purpose from the court is extrinsic fraud. It's It's the It's It goes to the heart of what extrinsic fraud is, which is something that occurred not within the proceeding but outside the proceeding. We wish it had occurred inside the proceeding. Um because then the trial court would have would have known why Miss Vescovo was seeking this name change. But instead, she didn't disclose it. Her not disclosing it affected the court's ability to use its discretion to consider the name change and prevented Mr. Vescovo from appearing or having the ability to appear or the court asking Miss Vescovo to have him appear so that he could tell the court what his position was on her asking for his name. He He based on a false allegation of marriage. So, um the other thing, Your Honor, that I want to point out is that you do not have to be a party to a name change proceeding to have a claim that a name change is improper or or for the court to be allowed to make an appropriate inquiry into the requested change. There's an appeal of Evarts, which is a court of appeal case. In that case, Marion Evarts, joined by her husband, um filed an application to change her name to Herron. After the trial court considered the reasons for the name change, she basically wanted to go back to her previous married name, the trial judge in trial judge instructed the name change applicant to notify a non-party, Southwestern Oil and Refining Company, of her application so that they could appear and participate in the hearing on the application. They then did appear and participate, and the court denied the application after they participated. And the importance of this, Your Honor, is had she been forthright with the court, had she not committed extrinsic fraud by failing to disclose her belief that she was married to Mr. Vescovo, the court would have had the opportunity to do what the court in appeal of Evarts did, which is say, "Well, where is Mr. Vescovo? Can I hear from him?" and make that appropriate inquiry, but she prevented that from happening. And now and benefited from that by obtaining the name change and then suing Mr. Vescovo on April 2023 claiming they had an informal marriage. Um so, Your Honor, what we would like is that the court allow us to have a new trial so that we can make sure there is a complete record, um on each element of the the bill of review, and in particular the tolling of the statute of limitations in this case under the discovery rule, because Mr. Vescovo had no way of discovering that Ms. Vescovo apparently thought they had been married 2 years before she sought the change of name, and told by fraud fraudulent concealment. Basically, Ms. Vescovo concealing purpose of her name change. And there was testimony, Your Honor, during the trial that was testimony that was elicited from Ms. Vescovo on cross-examination, which is why no offer of proof was necessary when that testimony was excluded under Texas Rule of Evidence 103, but we would like because that because Mr. [clears throat] Piacentio objected to these questions that went straight to the heart of the improper purpose for seeking the name change, and those were sustained, Your Honor. We would like a new trial so that we can ask those questions so that Your Honor can hear can can hear those answers and re-weigh the evidence and reconsider the evidence in light of that. I'll reserve the rest of my time, Your Honor, for rebuttal. Thank you. >> Thank you. Counsel, you Obey, you have 1 minute and 42 seconds left. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Attorney Piacente? Did I say it right? Oh, you're on mute. >> [laughter] >> It's a shame because everything I said while I was on mute was brilliant. I don't remember it, but it was definitely game-changing and going to win the case. >> Okay. [laughter] Okay. >> You didn't put your name correctly. >> Okay. All right. You may proceed. >> Thank you. May I please the court? Um this I'd like to read to you something from one of the exhibits, which is what um Victor Vescovo declared under penalty of perjury in the divorce case. This is our exhibit one and it's in paragraph 20. It says, "I did not learn about Monica's actual name change until approximately 1 month after it was approved by the court." Then later in that paragraph, it says, um Now, I'll I'll continue on to the next sentence. "Once I discovered that Monica had legally changed her name to Vescovo, I researched the issue to see if there was any way for me to file a legal proceeding forcing Monica to change her name back to Alabau." "By the time I learned about her name change, however, I felt it was too late for me to do anything legally and understood from researching the matter that I had little grounds to stop such a change in Texas courts." The point of this is he researched this matter and determined that he does not have grounds to force her to change her name. This This proceeding, their case, it is legally groundless. It is frivolous and they are aware of it and and Mr. Vescovo has declared under penalty of perjury that he knows that he doesn't have a basis to do what they're trying to do. So, I just want to start right there and, you know, if put this in the larger context, which is there was a a hard-fought divorce case that went on for over 2 years. They won, but it's on appeal and we don't know what the final outcome is going to be. So, no matter how many times they say that it's, you know, there's a final judgment that says they're not married, it's not final final yet. Um then after that, they sued her for defamation saying that she can't say that she was ever married to Victor and and they got a TRO that forced her to take down references to the marriage from her social media, um from from a GoFundMe and and and she was barred from saying anything about being, you know, ex-wife or, you know, married or anything like that. And the reason she got they got that is because she wasn't represented at the TRO hearing and uh opposing counsel failed to alert the court to binding Supreme Court precedent that precludes the relief that they were seeking and that was uh that was a violation of the duty of candor. Um at the preliminary injunction hearing, uh once I got involved, I filed a response to their preliminary injunction motion showing that there were three Texas Supreme Court cases that said they couldn't do what they were trying to do. And we had the hearing and the judge agreed with me, uh denied the preliminary injunction and they non-suited their case. Now, the day after I filed that uh brief from which they would have known that they were going to lose this hearing, the day after, they filed this proceeding. And they um this one is completely meritless. And to address the the arguments that um opposing counsel made, the whole thing is is based on an improper understanding of well, standing. So, for one, there there is no right for him to participate. The the statute does not authorize it. There's nothing that gives him a right to notice of of this or anything. And they are assuming they keep saying that she had an improper purpose. They haven't shown that. There's no evidence of that. The entire There Their entire argument about improper purpose is that she had a name change on October 2020. She filed for divorce on April 10th, 2023. And that's the first time he supposedly knew that she thought they were married. I I don't see any other evidence from which they got from, you know, point A to point B and say she has an improper purpose. Now, she wanted to say that some of the evidence that was the testimony that was excluded was um uh should be considered and they want, you know, a new trial on that. She didn't preserve She didn't preserve error. She didn't make an offer of proof. And so, she's not she's not allowed to challenge that at this point. And and she said she They rely on this case um In re Commitment of Smith to try to say that they didn't have to do that. This is on page eight of their um of their motion for new trial. And um And that case does not apply here because this was not cross-examination. Uh Ms. Ewing called Monica Viskova to the stand. It was a direct examination. It was a direct examination of the opposing party, but it was still a direct examination. In other words, she controlled the scope of of that questioning. Um and she you know, the the reasoning of of um In re Commitment of Smith, which you know, allows you not to have to give an offer of proof in very limited circumstances, is that you know, in a cross-examination, you you you are um the the answers are obvious of what you're trying to get at, and you're asking leading questions that are um you know, just taking you down the path, and you can tell from the transcript itself what the person is going to say. You know, that's that was not the case here. This was a direct examination. So, that that um exception just doesn't apply. Um there's a few other things that I um, take issue with from um, counsel's presentation. Uh, one is about you don't have to be a party. That is true. There is a narrow exception. You don't have to be a party to the original judgment to have a bill of review, but you do have to have an interest in the matter. That doesn't mean an interest in the colloquial sense of I'm interested in this, you know, because I am. It means a legal interest. In other words, you were either a party or you had a right to be a party. He didn't have a right to be a party, and so he doesn't fall under that exception. And so for that reason he doesn't have standing. And without standing, the court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, which is why I've argued all along that this case should be dismissed. Um, but even setting that aside, it it's also should be denied as the court properly did. So, I want to go down to the statute of limitations. They've tried to um, extend the um, they've tried to push the point uh, at which he found out uh, later and later. Uh, the first way he did that was by changing his story from what he told the 303rd. Uh, you know, he said one month there under penalty of perjury, and then he came here and said it was seven months. Now, conveniently, that seven if you take it out to seven months, that just so happens to be the the month before the four years expires. So, that was uh, fortuitous, I guess. Um, then now they want to say, oh, it wasn't until uh, he discovered on April 10th, 2023 that she had any idea uh, that that she was going to say that they were married. Well, if if you're if you're I guess from his perspective, this is his living girlfriend, um, and they went to Albania where they had a I don't know what he would refer to it, some kind of a a gathering at which you wore a white dress and they fed each other cake and the wedding march was played. Um and then this person changes her last name to yours. He was on inquiry notice. He needed to go find out, you know, what was going on here. And I'm not saying that she did it she did it for that reason. I'm not saying that. She's been very consistent about what the reason was. The reason was she needed a name that was easy to pronounce. I mean as we saw opposing counsel after 3 years of litigation now is still mispronouncing her name. It's Alibeyu. It It's It's hard. It's a hard name. Um she So they they don't have There's no interest and then let me see that Okay, I said they didn't make they didn't show any improper purpose. She's been consistent. She told the court it was because she needed an easier name to start her real estate career. And that's what she told um Victor Vescovo as well. Um and um and that's what she told this court. That is consistent. Um it was not to to to believe their version of events you would have to think that, you know, an immigrant from Albania who came here when she was 12 years old uh knows the ins and outs of uh informal marriage in Texas and 2 years in advance planned out, you know, how she was going to uh say she was married uh to get him for, you know, property and and whatever. But if you look at our exhibits and these are um exhibits six um six and seven he was encouraging her to use this name. He he uh got the the domain name for her of viscovarealty.com. He registered He helped her register that viscovarealty.com. Um and also got her um the email address um Well, she referred he refers to her email address monicaviscova@gmail.com and gives that to Tyler Jennings um with respect to some of this um IT stuff and um And then what was the other email the email address was um we've got the domain registration and um Let's see. It was I think monicaviscova.com was the other one. Um but he's encouraging her to use this name and I don't see how he can come now and say, you know, "Don't use it. I never wanted her to use it. Um I actually broke up with her 2 years before that." I mean, it it's just the story doesn't add up. Um and so because there's no standing the case to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the um the statute limitations it run. She they filed it more than 4 years later. The You don't have to believe the 7 months when he's already said under penalty of perjury it was 1 month. And regardless of whether which is right or wrong, he's judicially estopped from doing it because the law doesn't allow you to play fast and loose with different courts like that. He's just he's just He can't do that. Um and and the the idea that it was should be not counted until April 10th, 2023, that doesn't work because he was on inquiry notice from the moment he found out to determine, you know, whether this person who lived with him and had adopted his name had some belief about, you know, marriage. And and that reminds me of one other thing. They're saying that she had an obligation to tell the court that she had a belief that they claimed was unfounded. So, how is she supposed to know, like, oh, I'm supposed to I'm supposed to tell this mistaken belief to the to the court? I mean, she wasn't obligated to say anything about that because that wasn't the reason. The reason was she needed an easier name for her career. I mean, they haven't shown otherwise. Citing the petition in the divorce case doesn't prove that. It just doesn't. Um so, I'll I'll reserve the rest of my time. >> Thank you, counsel. You have 3 minutes and 12 seconds left. Attorney Ewing. >> Thank you, Your Honor. Um I first just want to I'll start with the issue of um judicial estoppel. And I think essentially what Mr. Piacente is saying is that because I guess because in an affidavit that he filed in the divorce suit where um he stated that he thought he um learned about the name change order in sometime um I think in November 2020 before um that he's therefore estopped um from now claiming that he learned about the purpose of the name change order in April 2023. These are two entirely separate issues, Your Honor, that I think Mr. Piacente is purposefully trying to confuse the court about. It is not when he learned of the name change order. And by the way, his statements on that are inconsistent, and he testified that what he said in that declaration about when he learned of the order was was a mistake. Beyond that, though, it doesn't matter because what matters is when he learned of the purpose, the improper purpose for the name change order, and that's when he learned that Ms. Vescovo apparently believed that they were married. And yes, she does have a duty of candor to this court. Mr. Piagentini cited to the duty of candor. When she appeared before this court, she had the duty to tell the court, "Oh, and by the way, this name that I'm asking to be changed to Viskovo, I'm married to Victor Viskovo." That would have set off all kinds of inquiries and alarm bells for the court, which is exactly why she didn't do it. Also, this idea that I had that um error is not preserved um unless an offer of proof is made when you're asking a a cross-examination question that is um objected to and sustained is just entirely false. Texas Rule of >> Also, you just ran out of time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Attorney um Piagentini, is there anything else? >> Yes. So, she she um I'm I'm not arguing what she said. She said that I'm saying that because he declared under penalty of perjury that she found out a month after the name change order that it happened that that means it couldn't have been until April 10th, 2023 that he found the improper purpose. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he can't say it happened 7 months after after he found out about the name change 7 months after the order when he already said it was 1 month after the order. The argument my argument about the April 10th, 2023 that he didn't find out the improper purpose until then is twofold. Number one, there's no improper purpose. They haven't shown it. The her proper purpose was she wanted an easier name for her real estate career. Just because they are in uh inferring and assuming that this had a nefarious purpose doesn't make it true and doesn't mean that there's any evidence of it. There is not. Um It it it wasn't for the purp- it They had already been you know, she believes they were married as of uh June 2018. They already have been married for over 2 years and she hadn't changed her name at that point. So, there's no reason to to that what the reasons that she gave weren't the reasons or that she had to disclose, you know, the marriage. It just it wasn't required. Um and then, let's see. Oh, I also wanted to make sure that the, you know, that that I clarify what extrinsic fraud is. They keep referring to this as extrinsic fraud that she didn't tell she's supposedly had this obligation to tell the court that she thought she was married. It it That's what you know, what she said to the court and what happened in those proceedings, that's intrinsic fraud and that's what you don't look at when you're doing a bill of review. Extrinsic fraud is what fraud did a person commit that prevented someone who had the right to participate from participating. Well, he didn't have a right to participate. There's no fraud there. Um so, for all those reasons, uh we think that the court should um dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively didn't deny the motion for new trial. >> Thank you, counsel. Um Attorney Ewing, I do have a question. Um in your case research, what has been the legal basis of the improper purpose that you're referring to in this case that case law has cited? >> Um yes, Runner. So, um the case law that I have relied on is are uh two cases, the appeal of Evitts um and it and In re Erickson, where the court of appeals discusses that >> thing. Let let's go one at a time and give me the site. In re >> In re Erickson, 547 >> I >> Yeah, E R I C K S O N >> Mhm. >> 547 Southwestern 357 >> And what's the specific pin site? >> Um, the specific pin pin site on that And Stephanie, do you have that? I think I actually sent that to you this morning. I can look it up. Um, is 357, Your Honor. >> Mhm. >> It's at 357. >> Okay. >> Um, the other case I would cite you to, Your Honor, is um, and Stephanie, do you have the full site for In re Gallagher? >> Yes, I do. >> [clears throat] >> In re Gallagher >> Spell Gallagher for the record, please. G A L L A G H E R >> Thank you. >> And um, this is a it's a Westlaw site, um, 2021 WL 526336. >> Thank you. >> Um, and Stephanie, can you also provide the court the Evitts citation? Cuz you have the full one, I think. It's at 754. >> The Evitts or the Erickson? >> Evitts, please. >> I have Erickson. Um, could you spell the um, the sec Eric however you say the second one? >> So there's Erickson, Evitts, and Gallagher. >> Okay, I need the Are you saying Evitts? >> Evitts. >> Evitts E V E T T S >> Okay, I got it. What's that site? >> 392 Southwest 2nd 781 and the pin site is at um, >> 784. >> Yes. And Your Honor, um, additionally, I would ask um, that you look at um, the adult name change statute specifically section 45.102 3 >> All right, and in these cases what is the improper purpose that you're saying exist in this case that exists in the other string of cases that you just gave me? >> So so the improper purpose in this case your honor we're stating is that Monica was seeking the name change so that to lend credibility to her assertion that the parties were married. And she by not even informing the judge that she believed she was married to Victor Vescovo the judge was not able to evaluate whether it would be an improper purpose to grant the name change. Um and so so that's what we're saying your honor and and we because we weren't able to ask questions of Ms. Vescovo about this improper purpose. I keep hearing there was no evidence. That's really the basis of our motion for a new trial. We want to be able to ask those questions of her to establish that evidence. Um and >> Okay, that's all I need to counsel because you you already out of time. I just need to get question answered. >> Sure. >> All right. So what the court is going to do is um Well, there are two things that I want to do. The first thing I'm going to do is going to go and review all of these cases myself. Um and in the meantime attorney Ewing I would like for you to prepare a brief on the improper purpose. Um because that's that's the disconnect that the court is is not really getting and I'm hoping that these cases will breach that for me because um at this point to Mr. Piacente's assertion, the court is not understanding the exact improper purpose as it pertains to a legal basis, and I need that brief. And Mr. um Attorney Piacente, you can also do provide a response if you choose to. You're not necessarily um I'm not asking you to per se, but if you'd like to make a response, you can do that. Um Attorney Ewing, could you have the brief back to me within the next 2 weeks? >> Yes. Yes, I can. >> Okay. All right. So, um what I'll do is I'll give you Your deadline is February 13th for a response. And then Attorney Piacente, would you need a week or would you need 2 weeks for a response? >> Okay. So, your deadline will be February 20th. >> And your honor, I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> I I just in the interest of wanting to have you review the brief while you still have plenary power to grant the new trial. Um I think we might need to get you that brief by tomorrow so that you can rule by tomorrow. >> I mean, that works for me. >> [laughter] >> Because I don't think you can rule after the 13th, unfortunately. I think you have to grant the new trial. >> Oh, the the Okay. Okay. So, let's do this. Um Can you get the brief back in, you know, by tomorrow? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Well, then if you can get it to me by tomorrow, Attorney Piacente, would you be able to get it to me a response by Friday? >> Um yes. >> Okay. So, we'll to do that. >> I just want to check and make sure. I think uh um that that What is tomorrow the last day by which the a new trial can be granted? >> Let me look at your when you filed it. I I show that the court would lose plenary power on January 29th, which would be tomorrow. >> So, your honor, is would it be possible for us to get you the brief um by um >> [clears throat] >> sometime today, by 5:00 p.m. today? Um and then Mr. Piagentini could have until tomorrow at 3:00 or something, so that you at least have the ability to grant it if you think it's warranted. >> Yes. Um and I would actually prefer it to do it that way cuz then I can do it by submission. >> Okay. So, then we'll get you our brief by 5:00 p.m. so that Mr. Piagentini can provide a response that would in time for you to consider it before you ruled by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. >> [laughter] >> All right. >> Okay. >> That works. It works. Everybody understand? Okay. If there's nothing