namely the denial of the good faith finding motions solved by jail g and the plaintiff as to their settlement with each other now on that issue the court focused on the facts and john town and argued the same of the idea that the plaintiff is doing indirectly that which the plaintiff is not permitted to do directly i believe that is both a misinterpretation of what the act applicable settlement achieve prevented under the contribution and it is permitted under the contribution at the trial court's interpretation of good faith under the contribution as creating a prohibition on something the plaintiff is doing the plaintiff taking assignment of a contribution claim was not in bad faith and was in good faith under the contribution now i'm not interpreting illinois law we cited two different cases from of loans from new jersey where these issues were discussed at length all of the arguments i think that were race here in the trial court were discussed about whether or not it is permissible in a contribution setting for plaintiffs to take an assigned playing for contribution and to pursue that claim as an athlete and those cases in accord with illinois law all found that that is permissible because the whole otherwise would be to a while for the double we're covering how that double is counted is left unexplained because johnstown has not paid a nickel to anyone johnstone's playwright a liability as it stands now is zero because the trial court at the end of this case when it was all were but the shouting the only thing that would have been different on that assignment is the payee on the check as to johnstown it's reckoning for its pro rata liability is it to jail gene directly or is it to plaintiff's as ass in need of jail g nothing else about the plan is different johnstown has every right that it would have otherwise on the direct claim of jail jean it's worth noting and this is clear from the records that there is no dispute johnstown does not dispute the statute of limitations defenses were not valid as against the claim that jail g could have brought and did bring against court finds no significant guidance in the case law on this we should have an appeal under three always certify the questions the questions that are issue here and the court says i'm worried not that i'm not going to i'm not going to allow that so all that those final hours the procedural steps in this case who would not be more direct and clear at every step it was stated in writing and there's a record before this court exactly how that stat related to step before the denial of motions for good faith finding was entered and the immediate next filing was judge you forced us to litigate against each other plaintiff in jail jean a case which we're trying to settle may we please get a second opinion on the judge said no i'm not going to allow you to do that so what we were left with doing was the option of either litigating the plaintiff litigates a party who doesn't want to leave against the party has to defend against claim it wants to settle or final appeal order which creates jurisdiction for this court and that is how we are hearing the final issue as to john's this johnstown has raised which i believe doesn't warrant significant discussion is the most recent motions or dismissed portions of the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the argument that the plaintiffs and jail jean not really filing their actions in the circuit court while this matter is ending has now made this hypothetically in the future if the plaintiff were to refile against johnstown that action would be barred by the one year provision in one thousand nine hundred the federally if jael ji were to refile against johnstone that provision or that suit would be barred by one thousand nine and for some reason completely unexplained those pending suits are necessary to create the empty vessel into which this court can return jurisdiction to the circuit court as this court is no doubt aware that is johnstown in that most recent motion dismissed to show that in certain circumstances the plaintiffs can refile an action in the circuit or while an appeal is pending between the same parties as the suck things of that matter entirely missing from any of the briefs entirely missing from illinois law is any requirement any finding plaintive maust refile this action in the circuit court while an appeal is pending if the one year provision will expire during the interpretating that were in the trial court completely disregarded all of the other cases which guide what is and is not good faith on contribution etc there is fire in one's kitchen and one reaches for the fire extinguisher if that fire extinguished it's not coming back that's extinguish if the fire smoldering and it might come back that's not extinguished that's smoldering fire is what we had here johnstown received summary liability they had was extinguished your lawyers that are still smoldering until the settlement aside until charlie's a hand says i sign off on my right to sue that's what the tribe judge mis understood and that's why the trial judge his motion for good faith finding was in error briefly counsel for johnson made a number of arguments about whether or not the program the share of john town was it was not included in the settlement jail jean that is for the jury to decide that is what we were prevented from proceeding with at trial the contribution claim those arguments and it make goes to the jurors as well that is not what happened what happened was the right to pursue a valid assignment chosen an action was taken away in contradiction of the law of illinois intervene contribution thank you very much