found dr goldman my client's ex husband had the right to take essential equipment from the surgical suite from my client's business we can to shoot contin there's one issue on appeal that i empty except for all equipment in the surgical suite which includes lights and if the is equipment and other fixtures attached to the building despite several objections it's a question of law for the trial court whether in light of the proffered evidence the contract is really susceptible to that interpretation that the printer like it's reason to me when i read it seems like it's reasonably susceptible to the interpretation of the some very few cases where including can be a term of limitation but there is no case where it modifies the word all here we had could take the equipment except for all the equipment in the surgical s include which includes lights and a c to quit and the law is clear and and dictionaries confirm that the normal everyday usage which is what this court must interpret contracts is the pla everyday usage that when you say acts all acts including y and z is a term of inclusion versus exclusion travelers cites no california case where including is a term of limitation the one case it cites makes a passing reference to sometimes including can be a term of limitation but it's usually only when his word only includes or sometimes when it says the definition so when you're instead of saying it is defined as you can you can say including but that is not this case and precisely because of the word all all equipment including x y  petition reasonable and there is nothing in those emails that shows that this interpretation is reasonable there's nothing about those emails that is based on this interpretation that the in says including was a term of limitation essentially what the trial judge did here is like oh well it looks like there's a contrary agreement contrary to the m s a post m s a and not sufficient but that is not the test it's not because we can't open a the world to say every time there's a subsequent agreement between contentious attorneys but that's about changes the final image thing but their argument is not that these were subsequent agreements the argument is that these e mails which were drafted after the marital settlement agreement reflect what the parties agreed to at the time ok well again that's not the standard it's not what the agreement was at the time the the standard is what about these e mails shows the interpretation of this particular phrase and also  about this exchange of the very and your analysis in your second paragraph is right as far as it goes the only issue i think we have is the surgical instruments which are part of the operating rooms and which mitt i think means dr goldman right does not use in his terminology practice response if you can point to anything in the judgment that's as much as leaving the surgical instruments as it states we are leaving the o r lighting tables and anesthesia equipment i will put it to you that language you need or wish existed however it's got a lot of clauses and a lot of exceptions exceptions and a lot of including again i'd like to focus again on the word all and in any case it meant he can take that it does that last last clause which includes the lights and anesthesia equipment does that modify the middle clause or the first well the n s t take is definitely in the surgical suite for one  notice that they're all doesn't say all equipment on the second floor he says for all equipment in the surgical suites so how can all be equivalent to three things that's th it's the premise phrase has the word all that including is a limitation in fact there's two cases that we cite in our brief that says essentially all means all and that was the when it case  edwards case edwards case says any and all claims cannot be interpreted to mean anything less than any and all claims so it is again is the word all that completely throws out the interpretation that including could be a term of limitation and again going to the rule under california law we've touched the statues and at federal law too i believe that the interpretation of contracts and statues has to be in the ordinary in popular sense and if i tell my daughter or son that they have to clean the kitchen and scour clippings scouring the sink they better clean the kitchen it doesn't mean just scouring the  second floor it was locked off it had two operating rooms it had a recovery room it had a what was when you say it had a recovery room what was in the recovery room  yes and medical equipment i believe there was a crash cart and medicines and oxygen and i v i v poles and it was testified to in the record and there's an attachment some there's an attachment the i believe at the end lemon a motion so when they when they signed when they walked away from this after having signed this this agreement and i'm not going to just put aside the e mail what was the doctor supposed to do the on the second floor and the record shows this is that there were a bunch of examination in consulting rooms around the second floor and that was primarily where dr goldman worked and as a dermatologist and using lasers and stuff and he had his his equipment in there the dermatologist will you know quitman and instruments that was discussed and he had a right to that and the even the laser equipment but as the testimony in the court showed that the whole operating room the surgical suite was the key elements of this business and my client and it was very important that she keep this it was you know it was her the business which before we hear your argument we need to take a short ten minute susceptible and i think it does for multiple reasons both just looking at the merrill selman agreement itself and then also when looking at what actually happened so first focusing on the merrill settlement agreement itself as as was already discussed the language in the subject sentence starts off with including but not limited to and then provide the language after that which includes it doesn't again say including but not limited to and as both counsel admitted just a moment ago and the case  dictionary definitions that we provide includes can be a term of limitation also the next sentence that immediately follows that sentence says that in the event petitioner who in this case was m desires to obtain and or retain laser equipment from any of the vendors at the spa she is free to deal directly with such lenders and the clear inference from that is that unless there is contact with these vendors dr goleman will be taking the laser equipment and so if if that if all equipment meant everything and it can mean that he could take anything in connection with that with his dermatology practice there be no need for another sentence about the laser equipment and the fact that mr x should be contacting the vendors if she wishes to retain them along those lines as well with what came in the record as the dr goleman was a energies there or servicing the second floor basically these entities were the tenants of the second floor in the surgical center was a mouthful but the acronym is c v s c and that was the name of dr goldman's company that ran the surgical center now as part of this same marital settlement agreement and in paragraph nine which is in the extreme which is an excerpt to record at page three forty six dr goleman was awarded that surgical center and all of its assets if you're to read the marriage you can't read the both parties had reasons to want this equipment right they both had use for the equipment well but one one doctor was actually and and so then when you look at what happened beyond just the terms of the agreement all that all the evidence that came in support of the fact that dr goleman took what he was entitle to take and that being that he left behind what followed the words which includes the itemized list passed their version about this when the trial judge made this evidence agree ruling there was other evidence of circumstantial evidence including i think travelers argued that they're the parties that agreed to an arbitrator case that was problems allocating and that that provision had not been invoked by petitioner yes was that fairly considered by the trial court at the time that this evidence very willing was made about these motion that was filed by lawyers they they've said that these were not actually parole evidence i'm familiar with that and so but to your honor's point i just question that the course of conduct that also supported that court to retain jurisdiction and iron out any issues that the parties might have and there was a trial set before the divorce court but it was dropped the jury i think in the special verdict form answered endorsed by the petitioner setting out what she thought was wrongfully taken that was not disavowed no in fact that was part of the moving target th outlined over the course of many pages in our in our brief but it was showing that when the claim was submitted to travelers that had false and that's representations and it was actually another doctor's equipment and there was a separate lawsuit suggesting that he that other doctor also york initiated filed a complaint and i don't know if that's a capital c complaint but anyway made the allegation that that that that entity that person or firm that represented her that she thought was responsible for drafting the sentence had drafted a sentence that was not that was vague correct ok did the trial judge in you know that at the time or did that happen later i believe that happened later on or so that wouldn't have been part of a calculation correct  also what happened later your honor is that miss york's attorney at the time was douglas stoat who was one of the individuals who signed the merrill settlement agreement he testified in this is in the of record at page one fifty four he said quote by the same token dr goldman should be able to take his equipment that he customarily and generally used in his dermatology practice otherwise why have a derma was never asked to make a determination to interpret this and so you know this is over the the denial of the rule fifty nine motion and you know we submit that just rolled in and abused its discretion when he denied finding that the jury verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence ok thank you exhibit different as exhibit a this is after and this is plaintiff's exhibit five and so if you compare the before and after there's literally millions of dollars in  there was that issue and i think the important thing to realize is the big picture of what's going on here is here you have a marital settlement agreement the final determination in a link the in contentious and expensive divorce and the parties agreed this is finally how we're going to resolve everything and then months later you have family law divorce attorneys you know posturing  trying to get a little bit more for their clients and this happens all the time and still what's happened is now worth throwing out this negotiated signed final stipulated judgment because of e mails that it doesn't say specifically this was our agreement that including means only there were a lots of e mails those e mails started two days after the ima say was signed and they ended two days before the unannounced move out in which probably happened because of all this dispute so there's no agreement at most perhaps there was you know some some sloppy responses to this barrage of e mails and some miscommunications they're talking about equipment versus instruments but what does it stake is opening up every m s a in every final stipulated judgment because subsequently the divorce attorneys sending e mails and if someone sloppy then it all bl