agreement between ten in the plaintiff that they would be paid equally in total compensation as evidence of an agreement plaintiff offered only  are supposed to be fifty fifty but the judgment is based on an agreement that they would share their total compensation fifty fifty now merely that the profits from the fifty fifty you know by the way he paid as far as the compensation and although he he assumed the existence of what oral agreement to compensate totally in his opinion which was the well first of all here he was doing very well himself getting paid i think about six hundred plus for what he did and as far as they have to he's mr justice first it fails to consider other things  going to compensation such as jim was responsible for the law hiring and firing for both offices ken was responsible terms of product development kills responsible for insurance the idea that he was just there working h say in all honesty with respect to that as opposed to can claim and did offer opinion testimony that she was over ten seated and i think we have made  clear in the brief that if there was any judgment that was appropriate i'd come by and if it was eight hundred fourteen thousand dollars ok so it to answer a question there might be we're not really disputing that you know we've got these other issues but in terms of her compensation fair enough ok but to his partner in my case the plaintiffs who is very much alive is supposed to receive the actual if other illinois public policy issue such as on the expression of society's outrage at such conduct and also the victims interest one of the reasons for one of the to give it to the victim so that they have an incentive to deter similar acts spector in a suit because compensation to compensatory damages aren't necessarily all that much and so w can testify compensation was reasonable because you didn't watch baron work but the question about whether he was reasonably compensated followed the deposition testimony about whether his job duties were he computer like a data processing clerk i would like to emphasize today that it was the defendant's burden to prove that there was reasonable compensation because he was self dealing that's the romantic case so he had the burden to show that this excessive amount over a beyond what mr kovac had was reasonable he worked half a day he mostly did typing and he got over a million dollars one year your honour's i want that john it was a reasonable i believe we brought up compensation unless the battle us or there's some sort of a resolution again it is beyond birth to show he was reasonably compensated because he was self dealing and he never showed any set of fans to show that we would be entitled to recover and that's a pretty good standard to meet so let me say from this time been doing prototype bookkeeping and we were paid a million over her deposition admittedly that historically she was aware that they were paid equal amounts she knew that it stopped because she was the bookkeeper she was transferring money to cast and writing and causing coding help one of the twelve that fifty six action under the business corporations act however judge moore decided that the damages for california are the same is the damages from count five and so therefore it should be that in order to clearly not the case and so i believe that the that the actual order should comply should be consistent with what the record stated and we certainly have standing to appeal that to mr parents estate certainly don't remove necessary parties to evolve that if the six to give the excessive compensation damages to mr kodak and the repair services to the operating companies that's really got everything you know they think they will see the issues but that's that's what we  can relate to three conversion claims and two conspiracy claims at the three conversion claims line i think this court needs mad address it was count seven against can related to conversion rental payments with involve the same parties and the same facts just a different theory every time every so we don't believe that needs to be addressed by counts four and eight counts for was against him for amounts that he and  possession too so normally it's property but it can be money but only if the plaintiff has an immediate right to those things and even this is kind of telling from their brief the pla different customers it's all mixed up into the operating funds that he's claiming will actually get a percentage of that but not until it's declared to be a profit so he couldn't actually have an immediate right to those funds at all times and that's it's not alleged in the the circumstances if you i think that's a maybe not it precisely go to use a good word convert you might say well if you're converting my crap you're taking my money you know you've converted it may be that might mean misappropriated or steal or funds transferred k b s and then characterized as contract labor the parent is with respect to the share of the rental income again this once and property where they are seeking approximately forty five thousand dollars but kant was responsible for whatever she was doing at his direction and the case law also holds that engaging in that conspire with the principal to carry out the principals seem so for that reason does counts for there's another action pending between the same parties for the same cause and they have a reading companies agree that this is subject to an abuse of discretion standard we have no transcript at the hearing a motion to dismiss and which the judge transcript in mind was it was a purely a question of the law here we're applying different back tears or of the appellate court had everything before it that the trial court can't hear we don't know what the judge heard what the parties argued or any statements that court had made on the record there's different factors to consider that are outlined in the case law for the courts to not require to consider every one it's clear that one has the  adjudicated as disabled six point seven two million and it's kind of disappear so we actually and santa to control of everything as of october and wait so that's why we're pursuing this cross appeal