everyone agrees that a judgment that lacks jurisdiction of the power of the parties is boy and maybe challenge at any time the defense counsel in their brief noted agreed with that citing the case of the state of the supreme court to recently said l v n be funding that the judgment that lacks jurisdiction of the parties is void and maybe challenge at any time defense counsel also acknowledge that almost turned holds that a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction if notice  given to necessary parties the oldster in case also decides whether the necessary party yes a necessary party is one of participation is required to protect its interest in the subject matter of the controversy which would be materially affected by its absence in this case both the minor children as well as future  beneficiaries of blue cross blue shield policies were necessary parties and somehow we know buying at that time in here because of the fact that blue cross position yes absolutely because of the fact that in other litigation blue cross blue shield is raising the judgment that was entered in champaign county in this case as a bar to those people seeking relief and so absolutely you know to the extent that they are trying to hold that this this determination was race judicata as to future beneficiaries absolutely those those future beneficiaries who are now current parent beneficiaries have a right to notice and so before they become absolutely at the time of entering into the policy that would be certain you couldn't just say they're not bound by that and they're not bound by what we're saying so there's we don't have a we're fighting that well with regard to that yes the court could do that in the court but that would be beneficial because at least in other litigation where instead it's being brought around the state i can joliet and other places where blue cross blue shield has raised the determination made in this litigation as a bar to that litigation certainly that would indicate that because of the fact that they they want back out but nevertheless blue well i think the court would have to make a specific finding that it it is not binding on any future beneficiaries because they were not parties at the time notwithstanding the settlement language agreement that was entered back in one nine hundred ninety seven which did purport to bind future beneficiaries bohm with regard to two minors the situation is even worse for example just giving an example of a typical say hundred thousand dollars settlement for some serious auto accident injuries and under the system that blue cross blue shield had at that time if the build amount of medical bills was forty thousand dollars and blue cross blue shield acknowledge that they got reimbursement for forty thousand dollars even though they actually paid only twenty thousand dollars pursuant to the discount arrangements that they had with the providers that other twenty thousand dollars between the forty thousand that was billed and the twenty thousand that was actually paid that twenty thousand dollars belongs to the minors and as the courts will recall as as trial court judges trial court judges have a special responsibility to minors in okaying a settlement to make sure that any amount of a settlement that is not going to medical bills doesn't go to the parents but goes for the benefit of a minor and the trial court is charged with setting up a special fines and reporting and the like to make sure that the parents don't abscond with the minors money what happened in this case was that because the miners and the trial court's dealing with theirs their settlements and the guardian and vitamins etc were not given notice nobody protected their interests so that huge discount of medical bills which typically is in the range of fifty percent between the bil and the actually actual amount paid went to the parents when it belonged to the miners they didn't get no this and this was this was incredible fraud on the court but more importantly it's lack of notice and lack of notice is crucial to the jurisdiction of the court i think that judge jones got sidetracked by the statements in the settlement funding case that that fraud is a grounds for overturning a judgment that more than two years old but settlement funding case also held that a court a judgment that is entered without jurisdiction of the parties or the subject matter or judgment that is entered by a court lacking inherent power to make that judgment or where the order is obtained by fraud is void and void and challengeable at any time what settlement funding didn't really talked about was the situation where there was lack of jurisdiction but clearly there was lack of jurisdiction over the miners because the miners and their ga hours and the courts taking care of their settlements did not get notice and without notice as the astern case makes clear a judgment is void and may be challenged at any time and so that's where judge jones went off the track because he was thinking well i've gotta see this i've got to find fraud well the judge didn't have to find fraud there was a lack of notice clearly that was admitted the miners didn't get notice and obviously the future beneficiaries did not get notice and yet they were bound by that judgment and they're still minors out there the disabled persons who still could come in and challenge that because they did not get notice but the lack of notice makes the judgment boy at any time and so for that reason we believe that judge jones erivan office has on their class or no your honor it wasn't but what it dealt with was to beneficiaries of a trust that did not get notice and the court said that because those beneficiaries did not get notice that the court was without jurisdiction so the only distinction between astern and our case is simply that it was a class of our cases a class action but clearly the same thing applies like for example with regard to even the original plaintiffs in this in this case there were some minors who got a settlement and that the defense counsel said oh well the parents don't have any independent interests of their children well clearly that's not the case with regard to settlements any money that doesn't go to medical bills belongs to the child and exclusively to the child and not to the parent but this agreement gave that money to the parents which was clearly a violation of the probate act and case law going back for more than almost one hundred forty or fifty years so i mean it was clearly without jurisdiction to enter that animals you have any case the wa shouldn't matter because a cut in a class action each person who's a member of the class is intitled to the same the same disposition and the same their rights are equally at fault it's just that there's a particular member that supporting them but indeed at that time there was there were minors whose interests were affected i e because of the fact that they talked about reimbursements and the reimbursements in the settlement that was agreed to in one nine hundred ninety seven went to the parents when they didn't belong to the parents they belonged to the children you problem because what was sec or what happened in that case is the court the court said that the that case was to the persons who who were not given notice were given were able to challenge it i don't believe it wasn't a class action suit  with regard to the issue of of of standing the the trial court did appropriately find that under the herber case a non party has standing if they are privy to the records and will be injured by the judgment clearly the future beneficiaries were injured by the judgment because of the fact that they are being precluded from challenging this new methodology because of the fact that the because of the fact that there is other indeed they have standing to raise that issue as judge jones appropriately found anymore question acquired by fourteen zero one what i'd like to focus on is the first question and that is whether there are any exceptions that would justify not requiring the district two year time period as the court equally is the date that blue cross was obligated to continue to adopt the prospective belief in the case and so that's why the petitioners abuse that date secondly they complained that  claims of minors and disabled persons these claims are with without merit for three reasons first petitioners did not adequately allege raising what i think is a strawman argument argument about jurisdiction and how some of the funding speak the jurisdiction i totally agree that it does is that's that's what we're here to discuss today is whether or not settled that funding  supports the idea that you can have fraud on the court without impacting jurisdiction this was a such a structure of metal medical malpractise settlement yes and settlement documents in the underlying medical malpracti despite that language the injured party the victim in the medical malpractise instance went ahead and did assign to a third party presumably to get up front cash under the illinois structured settlement protection act third party known as settlement funding was required to get approval of the assignment from the circuit court settlement funding petitioned the court and ask for that authority but failed to tell the problem that there was and he assignment language in the underlying settlement documents the significance of that is that when the trial court proceeded with approving that assignment it did so effectively without jurisdiction and had the court know about that the third party should have informed the trial court about this language which spoke to whether or not the court had jurisdiction in the first place settlement funding is precisely about your station the trial court here in judge jones correctly held petitioners did not allege any type of fraud let alone what i believe the settlement finding requires which is an allegation of fraud relating to the court's jurisdiction over the case from settlement finding do that that future insurers are bound by the sudden counsel a moment ago referred to other cases where blue cross has claimed that that there are future insurers that are bound by what happened in the air base and i am at a loss to know those other cases in fact i would argue the opposite blue cross was bound by the so those defined in the class were bound by the settlement know about who these people may be well one of them is petitioner act who purchased his blue cross insurance more than ten years after the settlement agreement was entered under the  individual notice to always doubly identifiable classroom it also involves notice in sixteen newspapers around the state and at the time the trial court found that quote the notice to the class contained in implemented pursuant to the court's preliminary order of approval comported with all due process requirements and then other things adequately advised members of the class as to the particulars of the settlement opt out rights applicable deadlines and the claims process query what else could you do under the circumstances and who else could you notify and then those that are defined by the class involving prospective relief if you have to give notice to people that you don't even know might one day in death benefiting from the perspective really so the facts i think are clear about what was at the root of this particular saddle and one of the mechanisms for selling the case was to address the points that that counsel raised about this the issue of how these discounts would be addressed if it discounts from providers ward it didn't constitute any kind of allocation again the issue is whether these are sufficient allegations to say that the fraud prevented the court from quote acquiring jurisdiction and or merely provided color these allegations were just not sufficient to do that the trial court correctly determined the petitioners did not adequately allege that the judge was a fraud with regard to minors as an aside this is these are health insurance products and of the typical scenario is where a member of the family obtains health insurance through their employer and beneficiaries of that health insurance often include the family and that's what we're talking about here and the criticism that has been raised not hate identifying any such procedures and i can speak from personal experience because i was one of the lawyers that held its case i was a younger lawyer and i can tell you that this was a several year process of vigorous litigation and the record is quite clear that such miller was very aware of the scenarios that out of the scenario that i just described a typical scenario we had two people that were named plaintiffs in the case who had children who were marg again it was filed well after the two year limit and there has been no evidence of the sorts of situations that would excuse going beyond that to your time here you know as the court knows we've also raised an alternative nine he had no legally cognizable interest to pursue the relief sought in the first amendment titian as he was clearly not a member of the class as mentioned before he did not acquire his insurance until ten years later that they are injured by the judgment such that they would derive material benefit from its reversal the problem is that under fourteen zero one it was never intended to permit a person not a party to the action to intervene after the athens claims that he retroactive and by choice incurred an injury in a decade old class action judgment now under the trial court's reading the whole bird anyone can seek relief from a closed class action a judgement by whom is a minor and that child was not work at the time the class was the five so we were left over left with our future two children who are now adults and mr shack is not permitted to raise a claim on behalf of his adult children if these individuals have a claim they need to raise it in their own rights to be the representative of his children as if that's permissible and whether it is or it isn't isn't so much the point point is that there are class representatives that were vetted seventeen years ago who were qualified to represent the interest of the class and so on the one hand they argue that mr sha'ath can do this today on behalf of somebody else a minor but but that seventeen years ago the class representatives were incapable of doing it on void and can be overturned at any time and that is not the first option is if it entered without jurisdiction of the parties or the subject  now on the facts of settlement funding the court did indeed have jurisdiction over the parties the parties all the relevant parties were before the court so the only way that the court was going to overturn the outcome in that case is if the judgment was obtained by fraud we don't have that situation here because the miners interests were not represented before the court there weren't any ga l's appointed for the miners and the trial court judges that were handling their settlements across state were not apprised of that and those miners who had settlements that again as the example i raised a forty thousand dollars payment for medical bills was told to the trial courts and to the ga owl's handling those settlements when in fact the only payment made for medical bills was twenty thousand so that mean that every minor got gypped in that instance of twenty thousand dollars and the trial court's handling those settlements were to see it and what happened because of the fact that the miners interests weren't represented the parents pocketed that money and that was inappropriate that is goes against case law for one hundred fifty years so that is just not not accurate to say that the with regard to the issue of the tolling plaintiffs council did indeed raise the tolling issue and i could cite to the court the memorandum response to combine motion to dismiss first and then to verify petition which we filed on january sixteenth of two thousand and fifteen in which at page fourteen we said defended also fails to address the fact that some of those miners are disabled persons it rick purportedly compromise remain disabled as such this court has not lost jurisdiction to re examine the one nine hundred ninety six settlement or the one nine hundred ninety seven order for purposes of protecting their rights those this able person could still today come in and vacate the settlement and we raise that in front of judge jones it's also not ironic that we bring parents that shock is bringing this as next friend parents can always bring a lawsuit for the benefit of their children the problem is they cannot settle a a lawsuit for the benefit of their children it must be done with court approval in which the court is not looking at the parents interests but is looking in fact at the children's interests one other thing i want to mention we did indicate litigation that is pending elsewhere involving cross blue shield i mention the case of bradley vs health care service corporation number thirteen c h zero one zero zero eight zero zero and that was referenced again at page six know two of the same memorandum which indicates again some of the litigation that is pending around the state which this court can take judicial notice of and so that is why it is very important for it to be declared that beneficiaries that came in after one nine hundred ninety seven particularly one nine hundred ninety seven through two thousand of latin and now apparently blue cross has tried to extend that new methodology beyond that time