any decision relative to the possession aspects of this case or whatever it is that is at issue is also presented at the time with a petition from bar harbor seeking a return of approximately eighty thousand  courts cannot take what should not take jurisdiction of the same case at the same time that's what two six nineteen is all about that it should not be two pending cases concerning the same matter the same parties and so forth but they make the permitting no briefing no arguing i successfully requested that the charges include in the order language which reflected what had really happened before him which is that we so the position before him that he had exclusive jurisdiction the order said that i don't know what else we could have done that was not a court reporter present we had gone in thinking that we were there then or that's a status or briefing schedule and to seven twenty which discusses this allows you i believe to do what you did i can't find any cases where that's come up though where the each mention of the pound of the swimming pool of the field house was part i don't see any cases  when they defended themselves when they brought the action that was as pedal what they said was the easements can be separated out and we don't have to pay any taxes on these meds we don't have to do anything so even though you own the title exclusive jurisdiction it is improper to defer to judge panel on this matter we made that argument it is before this court it could not be we have no opportunity to make it otherwise because he said i want to hear anything i want you to write you know and he's not alone no i don't believe so because the tax deep always winds up and terms of ownership of a fee simple title with twenty to seventy seems to say you sell it if someone feels depleted texts that this is getting far off the point i'm not aware of any portion of the types of it's that easement can be sold separately i am not aware of the tax code makes clear that the easement is part of the title it is the property itself with all of this incidence that the taxes imposed on those circumstances very case could do what they are saying which is to enjoy the property tax free on the right or there would never be an occasion where the tax collector could say what you said now your swimming pool where you're using all they to suggest that some out they are not bound by the actions of the association which eff primitive state affirmatively elected not to redeem and not to do anything regarding demonstrated the rightness of the opposition and the correctness of it under the law we received this court's order f erm ing that fact and we went back to the lower court and for whatever reason except for entering the judgment which this court directed him to enter judge are washed his hands of it if that is to be the case as a matter of course how can one ever know that this jurisdiction when a judge decides that there's something that is unpleasant about the case that something that he doesn't like about it he can simply walk away from the notion of jurisdiction and up the this is what i'm going to do we objected to that saying that you have explicit jurisdiction that's based on two six nineteen to suggest that we didn't bring up to six nineteen is an effect to say somebody makes something impossible for you to do and then you get blamed for not having done it everything that we could do before the judge we did and we even have put in the oil line which was which in which he recognized that we raised the question of his having exclusive yes that was the matter on which we appeared before him on the seventh of january indeed he denied it yet he said i defer i am  each court or the illinois courts are courts i'm generally jurisdiction i don't know that anybody argues with that we bought it from this court case the barrel case where the same kind of any type of easement governing commonwealth medicine i'm sure that they do judge but here we have case law stablish ing that when you have parcel of land to which i texted was again in december two thousand and nine ruling that those restricted restrictive covenants and easements were not extinguished by the text case so if this court were to know some of these rulings that the numbers of the association  fans and as part of that ruling she found two key issues she found at first but you did orders and the association were not the same party so that's right but she also found that the issue of identity of cause of action was not present right that that's that section twenty two seventy and we're not saying any you can orders aren't saying that they should be paid no renumeration for their ownership of the common areas that's not the unit or its position at all and you can see that owner and subsequent owner or actually requiring every order a subsequent order to abide by those covenants restrictions who the flipside of your question your honor is who would ever purchase a kind of menu that could possibly lose all their rights to use the how come the you're that the record asylum that matter this court has an opinion on that issue i think that was a big misunderstanding from what i understand there were the developer and inadvertently file fail to file an exemption for the taxes on the common areas and it just never came to the attention of the homeowners now i don't know why or what happened that in that proceeding as to why i didn't pay those taxes obviously they should have that was a mistake and i can tell you that was an inadvertent mistake but yeah that was not pretty exactly what happened with the homeowners association at that time they were represented by separate counsel and that that section twenty two eighty deposit has been fulfilled we should be entitled to return of those funds section twenty two eighty s very clear that was reversed if it had been affirmed we would have paid mr cook his redemption costs and we would have big hit the testee but that's not what happened so there is no statutory purpose for leaving those funds comes to just cancel the other point to make is that if this court were to reverse remain and have judge paul decide their requests for relief we would have two parallel proceedings one of which in the tax work might potentially infringe on the temporary restraining order and limit circumstances involved in this case where you have the question of what factors reported covenants running with the way it happened a text that issue i don't believe is going to come up very frequently so the case can certainly be decided and  to the facts for the court what we've suggested to judge paul is that we shouldn't have two parallel lawsuits that turn on the same legal issue and because of that we live it would be  common areas during the attacks last open area would have been there yes and that's what barber should have done they should have asked the sesar to assess the usual one dollar for the common areas but there was an oversight they didn't do that if they didn't pay a one  case it's a matter comes down to a matter of judicial efficiency whether we want to lawsuits turning on the same issue that could reach potentially opposite results or whether that is best decided by one judge was also who's already heard your honor you know but it was it didn't happen within a month afterwards and i counsel argued that he didn't have an opportunity to assert things like section two six one nine i ever the motion for leave to release the redemption funds was fully briefed there was an opportunity there and he did assert his creditors will carry into close judgment motions that were filed on february sixth a few thousand nine so there was an opportunity to submit written argument on both of these issues neat then to say explicit jurisdiction rested with judge and rests with him i don't know how he's going to rule on these issues but surely they should be presented to counsel also talk about what he said was the vote only issue of whether to do something about these taxes with them the redemption perrie they decided not to what senator byrd about that finally let me just say that