he had met the requisites of section thirteen dash one of nine regarding adverse possession under that statute we understand that the appellate court of course ruled that he did not meet those requirements with respect to the cases bar but the prior opinion went further than that in saying well you couldn't possibly have made it under any circumstances because he didn't sass trackday for the requisite seven years that the simple factual error that we asked this court to thrash and opinion in this case so that whatever rights that he may have with respect to the errors of the summer mary summers richard scott a cell that he may be able to assert depending on what happens in the court below that's all we're asking this court to do it's clear beyond peradventure that he had met those requirements as pla point out in their own brief their it was actually in the record in the in the prior appeal but it was in disparate places we asked the court to consider and take judicial notice of a subsequent complain percent ownership interest in track day that has not been resolved and the appellate court this court made it very clear in its opinion that because of the failure to join necessary parties that it's entirely possible what it has to do is is what rights that my client might have in the event that these ninety five percent owners or some portion of them come forward and stated plame we may want to be able to  the court still is taking with the case to the appeal itself the whole question about whether or not it could take you to szell notice of this other case for the reasons set forth in our brief i think it's very clear that the for through this six hundred or more page record to find it but in different parts of the record yes it was pointed out that my client did park his car on the property started paying taxes on it then the lawsuit was filed but there was also testimony of other parts of the record that in fact you got the car parked there occupying the space for more than the seven year period so whether the poor taste judicial notice of the new law suit or not it still has made an argument in their brief that well we're not saying that he heirs of the rich are scottish so were no necessary parties stay say that we were confused by this but in fact should reach a discussion of the merits of it but if you choose to assume what he says are the requirements he does eat them there is no fact that came to light since would help him it is defense in the trespass case going on to this next issue the second one of the notice of appeal actually filed thank you runners opposing counsel are a few steps defended initially challenged the contents of the order flow and not the fact of the order itself and i think what he's trying to do is basically make a way for arguments that somehow we waived it well this was addressed pretty thoroughly in a reply brief first of all it's an issue of subject matter jurisdiction so it can't be way secondly if you look at the second letter that was savage part of the record objecting to the second post order it would have been submitted i did read question whether or not the trial court even had the authority to order an order at all so we did make the argument of the court below and of course even if the court decides that in some sense i did waive it waivers not a limitation on this horsepower you can still consider it anyway but i think the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is clear they don't have the subject matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any yes we had even established it and the rest are already that he was physically in possession of crack today more than the requisite seven years so i would ask this court respectfully to disregard the word games here we're talking about in this case for this argument physical possession he met the requirements prior to the court which fact are mistaken it's not disputed it's probably around as oppos earlier that section thirteen that we are abandoning the argument based on section thirty that when i ninety seven your adverse possession yes it was again for purposes of this case it doesn't change the fact that he met the requirements and that's the point here it doesn't mean that he abandoned it with respect to any possible claimant for all time it meant that in a contest there because he started his period about a month a year before the lawsuit was filed he didn't get the seven years in before there was it was filed so we were able to use that effectively in the court of law for purposes of this case but it doesn't mean that he he fell to meet the requirements accordingly that argument is non respons argument either in their briefs or and argument before the court is any mention of dahlan jupiter case or any contrary authority showing that the trial court at the forty eight to enter the orders that he did and that's really dispositive here your hono  someone they can deal with again for thirteen years i suddenly being told he doesn't have standing to appeal i decision that affects his rights and it does affect his rights with respect to any future proceedings that may involve the other ninety four or five percent errors of the richards kind of self so for these reasons we back to court for your time and for listening and with respectfully ask this court