there's three things you know here the defendants receive a quarter of a million dollars from the plaintiffs and the pleading stage everything indicates that this was an obligation machinations in terms of how it's going to be accomplished but the ultimate thing here is that we're leaving dollars was given and a quarter million dollars is owed back including by seal properties wh be the statute of limitations and based on the fact that there would be public notice of the letter of incorporation of the business in the  considering this it is strictly an equity interest in the corporation i think however from her rulings she didn't view would primarily in that vein because of the fact that she went into detail about two was the first time the bed of a sudden you notice that he didn't intend to go by this one third one third one other thing susan's probably brought up at that time so we have a situation here we are you know there is of the authority to adopt those rules came from the supreme court itself night i think that is the authority of the supreme court generated those there are others there's still the ability off whereas if they tell us to preconcerted light of such and such we're going to pass like we ever asked cases or supplemental review in light of that case and then you write  we then render a new decision i had filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the basis of the prior rule twenty three quarter or discord in my reading of the twenty three order had previously specifically address divorce case but also any other liability any other amounts that were due to the deal to levy family in this who are in here twenty three of its rule twenty three orders pacific we pointed out the trial court correctly concluded that the offering agreement related only to the corporation that was simply an investment into the family tree nursery they did not make any allegation in any of their amended pleasance in this case in the trial court that they should have been on the title to the properties themselves but they allege in paragraph twenty one specifically alleges and it's repeated throughout is they say that there was some  on the part of dennis and pamela because they didn't not transfer the title to the corporation which is from from those allegations they are themselves alleging that the equitable interests are the interest in this property or the title of this property was to go to the corporation and their claims are there for claims that they were looking toward the corporation the corporation had been dissolved  two thousand and one more than ten years from now at the time that they filed this more than five years from all of their causes of action which as we know they correctly decided was in the very first proceeding on the first motion to dismiss the first complaint she said the corporation is got to be the necessary party here for this which is following exactly in line with what your rule twenty three order was this corporation made  well i think in divorce court that happens all the time is a decision is made as to which if it isn't alone but it relates to an equitable interest does she have an act i'm asking you if she had an equitable interest equal to x files but she doesn't have to pay or do anything relative to burke interest because the divorce decree placed the onus on the ex spouse for whatever recompense or liability might relate to either the corporation of the other family members their claim in this case was that they have some kind of interest directly in those properties judge we said by their pleadings they're actually saying they put some money into this mix but by the exhibit c signed back in two thousand and one they're claiming in their allegations that pursuant to exhibit see that the corporation has some interest in marital into these as two there really there are no claim that they have some equitable interest in those properties which would have to go through the corporation in some way as if someone who claims an interest in a corporation has a direct interest in equity of some type in the individual corporate assets which has never been transferred over what is your position relative to what your it's a low i've not seen any loan documents where she has signed into agreeing to pay back money on any particular terms the time period for bringing in proper tree farm left him to go outside the record to tell you what i understand about her but what's in the record is they claim they gave money to dennis under some circumstances and then there's a six digit c and they're claiming that they should get paid back some money i don't dispute that part of what they're saying as far as what my clients position is with respect of all that we we only stayed effectively is making it very difficult to sell properties as the divorce judge indicated these people were my client is working in prison we've been making a lot and could use the money from the sale of the properties which is being held up because of this case so there's there's there's some pressure just put it's more well to time i think this usually means that if there's some alternative route that would result in a more beneficial result that wou saw from the family so that's not an issue at this point in the pleading stage  come close to matching that's an issue in this case and what's being claimed that this case and even in his letter opinion in the underlying dissolution actions said no we're not it's not really even certain about certain things here the numbers that are allocated to him or talk about terms of money the family there's no winners don't manage what is being alleged here so i'm not sure where those numbers came