a partition in kind of the property to friday's reached a settlement agreement in january twenty seventeen and they called the court to let the judge know actually melissa counts and called the judge to let him know and that at some point something happened and william ended up bringing the motion to enforce that settlement agreement and that was in march twenty seventh even there was a hearing held it wasn't on the record on march twenty ninth and the court ended it not granting william the relief he requested the parties proceed it to an evidentiary hearing on the actual partition issue on june twenty first twenty seventeen so about three months later  a final right and so that was the judge's ruling but i that's what i'm appealing is the fact that the judge believe that there was a notice by a settlement agreement between the parties and so his ruling on that issue was actually reviewed didn't know about because he did not have an evidentiary hearing on the issue so the existence of enforceable settlement agreement as you term it just like any other contract you've got a fair a sentence consideration and you've got to have the essential melissa actually accepted all of those changes the only notation she wrote in the contract was need clarification and next year one of the terms and that term had to do with who was going to be receiving the portion where the contract to be enforceable for the sale of real estate is a specific kind of contract you need four things you need the names of the parties the description of the property the price and the signature of the body to be charged and melissa in this case actually not only signed it but she sang it in front of a notary and then after she signed in front of a notary she called the court the council called the court and said hey we have a settlement agreement here so we'll i believe that she did believe that there was a settlement agreement in this case the fact that she put it needs clarification next to one of the terms of the contract that was one not one of those were things that you need to enforce the contract i think that that is that shows that it was not essential to the completely and that way it would have showed the i really think that this is finally settled but that it's not required under illinois law to do that and this is not anywhere on usual procedure to prepare documents other than the settlement agreement itself to arrange for payment between the parties before anything is dismissed and things as we see the things can go wrong before the pedal before settlement funds are received or before the place actually effectuate the sentiment that they agree always bring up some procedural issues that i want to address before moving on to some other issues but the first of the procedural issues is that melissa bennett are these waiver because my client didn't bring up the settlement agreement at the june hearing on the partition but it i think i'm not sure how really that could have happened when an entire hearing was devoted to the issue of the settlement agreement on march twenty ninth earlier that day in the air about three months earlier  at the facts of it that my client was not required to really argue or otherwise bring up the fact that this settlement agreement was not in force improperly not in first at the much hearing and the six insufficient record because there's no transcript of the three twenty nine for seedings and then she goes on to say that the parties may have recorded she did earlier that they were still in negotiations and my client vehemently file that's according to the gun now like case three thirty seven three eighty five so in conclusion as to the settlement agreement issue the trial court should have been forced at at the hearing on three twenty nine and the  sale of the property and that's reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard so the procedure for a petition action is the trial court has to find that the property can be divided without manifest injustice to the parties and therefore in making that decision the trial court has discretion but that discretion can be used if the trial court doesn't properly consider evidence before it in making that manifest injustice decision  consider williams interest to that question and what he said was that east west of vision would be an equitable because there's a waterway that would prohibit access to the southern portion of the east during our selves that you split the property in half the parties had actually testified regarding that waterway during their cases in chief before the court during their regular testimony and bill parties referred to the fact that the waterway existed millet's it even said the waterways w that they were basically going that testimony when he split the property into east west texas and then after asking for input from william regarding the east west split to william that well there was no testimony building improvements like that are part of the old t calculation and that's under the harris case forty two they're going to run basically in that case there was granted and the amount necessary to the client owns the property to the east doesn't matter though when you're looking at the proper one parcel i mean that's a added plus for her but we were just working at th the judge i know didn't take into consideration the fact that he did own land of plenty that to the east which would have taken out any issues with access or access t have a medium of mind when somebody takes opinion rights and there need clarification to mean that right there shows that there was no agreement they didn't have any agreement and the fact is i mean there were two separate versions of an alleged memorandum of understanding attached to the motion of course which really is the just choose to choose there were two did they were dated differently and there was different writing on each one they were swirls granted but they weren't there yet and they were they were obviously not there because  interesting i think maybe they think there were i think there might have been but that's not a record but i do know that because there's an issue i mean here's the problem i think we're going to end up back in trial court over this specific issue i mean because that there is evidence in the record the very little evidence in the record to support the judge's ruling that what he did was equitable it was not a manifest injustice and you know as far as the  payment again there's no evidence in the record where was the appraiser skis you know there should have been an appraiser sitting on the stand for hours testifying about what the value of the  was what the value of the pasture acreage was shed that nobody valued there were no commissioners appointed only asked for any commissions not to mention the fact that the settlement the alleged settlement agreement was never even brought up  trial nobody said a word nobody said a word about the alleged settlement agreement at the trial on june twenty first we have to march date where we have a very very limited record the only thing we have is the mail tahsin the docket that says unsettled why the judge made that documentary i don't know i wasn't there and we don't have a record to figure out why but i think bed based i think the law says that the record at that point we have to assume the judge made a proper ruling based on the facts of the wall and it's the appellant's job to bolster their record which they didn't do so at this point i think that was an issue that that the steel ledge certainly really was a non issue at that point and then you go to trial on june twenty first and the fact that you are a trial of good is not my client's call she wasn't the petitioner he could dismissed it at any point right before enough to trial but he did he ask very beginning of hearing by mr raines his client to me to preserve that specific issue that they didn't say anything about and again like you know yes there were there had been money exchanged but i can tell you this that's going to be another we're going ppen right away and that you know these cases in my opinion my experience go to quickly to last this long partition suits for me to move relatively relatively quickly because again there's only two things that can happen when you take a partition all the way and he got it and he should present and were able to trial if he thought that this was going to be an issue he very easily could have gotten on the stand and say judge there's an issue with access with this waterway that that's not something that should have been hard to foresee by is very important on that issue that's three sixty six there to nine thirty five in that case if you don't have to bring it up at the second hearing that's on the merits of whatever the dispute is about and so in that  then a couple months later in january there was a completely different motion by the other party on a completely different issue nobody brought up the settlement agreement at that second hearing that was a couple months later but the  at the november hearing  i don't know if we do we need the word tonight in there for it to be have the same effect is what he said i mean that for all intents and purposes it was denied in the parties had to continue all right and now look opposing counsel has mentioned that my client should have just dismissed the lawsuit altogether if he really believed that there was a settlement agreement and again i point to the brewer case which is not only sprinkle a case one sixty five second one hundred says the trial court has the power to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the parties while that same suit is pending before the court it's not required for my client to dismiss it and then bring a whole other lawsuit i mean that just  situation happened in ramirez nobody drive the settlement agreement at the second hearing in that case either but the appellate court was still able to discuss that settlement agreement in that case even though the second hearing was on the merits of the next issue that they were discussing about today in fact my client doesn't want to keep his personal regardless of what happens he wants to tell the whole entire thing but even if he's stuck with this eastern chrysler his concern is that he can't sell that