its may twenty eighth two thousand and eight opinion in the prior to this matter that was the directive that these defendants ignore and that was the directive that these defendants we convinced the trial judge in the present case to disregard but this court's directive for the defendants to negotiate negotiate the terms of the escrow in good must be fun and because it must be flown the trial court's judgment in the current case should be with us as this court is undoubtedly aware this appeal stems from a contract for purchase of real where a dispute arose between the parties concerning the posting of certain cash ernest's money and the entry into an earnest money agreement in escrow the defendant is the settlers had tendered an escrow agreement previously but purported to terminate the parties contract before the plane had even had a chance to make comments on national nevertheless even after the defendant stroman aided the the despite that tender of the escrow agreement this out of the defendant still took the position that that contract was terminated and the initial lawsuit then followed from back and during that and that was all in the context in the the in connection with the initial lawsuit which then proceeded to trial and of course the first appeal in this matter and in that first appeal this court found that the defendant terminations of the parties contract was improper should not have been terminated and the court made this specific directive to the defendants specifically to the defendants you must negotiate the the defendant's petition for leave to appeal to the supreme court the petition for leave to appeal was denied in november on november twenty sixth of two thousand and eight the mandate was then issued to the clerk of the circuit court on zero and again it's important to know that that was the setting when a screw agreement and not the initial escrow agreement and the reason it's important to note that is because this court actually in the opinions that there are various provisions in the initial escrow agreement that were commercially unreasonable that actually might have made some sense for the parties to include but that's not the one that the defendants had signed and sent back they sent back the settlement defendants continue to develop their property they obtain governmental approvals they change the very character of their parties contract however requires the parties to go through this process together but defendants didn't include the because for for us to negotiate the escrow very good faith we wanted to be assured that there was still a piece of property that would be available for the plaintiff to purchase the actual purpose for the parties  rejected you rejected it it still could be that the mandate has occurred so it's not timely yet you have to do with after the mandate the issuance of the judgment and tell us what you've done to the property give us some proof that the property still exists before we post fifty thousand dollars worth of cash that then they took time to tell us is part of the good faith negotiation that the parties were supposed to engage in tell us what we've done to the pro on to walgreen's as part of its committee a crew that was all going to part of the issues actually one of the defenses they raised in the first appeal which this court said no you can't determine what that size of the parcel is by doing the would we have been willing to enter into an escrow agreement certain we even with that and this but that site plan was a necessary step prior to deposit the fifty thousand dollars cash because the cash wouldn't have gone until walgreen's approved and the site plan had to be approved by the parties before it was tender to quality so really before the cash money the parties it's it's but it's not exactly that what the court order was for the defendant to negotiate in good faith our contention on that was in good faith they needed to pyramid with the proper use of the word you're going to run it was different than the necessarily that it wasn't necessarily physical changes to the property as that there were potentially physical changes property but it was entering get engaged in in this case was relying on his own personal experience in him in negotiating extra and doing real estate developer it's rather than solely rely on the evidence in this case he specifically said that he was relying on his own personal experience and one of the make sure this court knew that he was relying on this that it was monday that these are the kinds of agreements people know transaction we don't know whether there was just cash flowing into the earnest money remans we don't know whether they were held with title companies we don't know whether there were you know attorneys fees clauses in it we don't know whether there was an attorney on the other side we don't know whether there were even opportunities to negotiate those in the other cases because we don't know what it is he was one so but in this context of this particular case he was supposed to enforce your order that  said was your course yes yes of course there was a response back from us same you previously rejected that you can't breathe life back into it plus the mandate hasn't come down yet so you need to do something after whether there was anything that sat these are the specific conditions or here's some additional things that we want to be put in there that was engaged certainly in the prior negotiation that was included in the pri suggested to this court as part of that same argument that there is a pen division in the current track we call for off to to make some representations that it would be the party had been changed and that was a claim that there was a condition that we had not met but even at the trial we showed that the property was basically the same with the same piece of land it was in the first place the only condition demanding before the trial in the last case reader and his attorney submitted the escrow agreement that we had  that is part of i mean i think that you can find that that isn't the gateman in a negotiation in good faith but their proposal is i take something that previously was rejected i said my name to it may i say son this is it it's awfully here's how the real estate here's what the real estate looks like and how here's what we've done what is it you don't like and we'll we'll change this on the escrow agreement here's what will proposed to the actually do this yes any changes to th settlement agreement or after agreement came up we had tendered in previous mark that extra that contained other additional provisions which this court said these would be reasonable provisions and we find support for that was reasonable provisions in the record because you've agreed you've used those in other in other and all after we proposed those other changes in the first level we propose  you oh you don't like that one to make you comfortable well and i think it is important to look at the timing it was before the issues in the main edition he was the one that really well they could have done exactly the same and it was they were wrong again to start the ball rolling in good faith not to just say i'm going to take what we've previously rejected and sign it and tell you put a fifty thousand as a take it or leave it here and in the context fifty thousand dollars where are we in this crisis because that is in the context of the bigger picture of the entire transaction good faith that in good faith on o take it or leave it but you didn't have to do that you could have responded by saying we we want these changes to the i guess in the context of what this court had tool the order of for before we have to do fifty thousand dollars would seem to be a reasonable response in the context of what this court had specifically told those those defend us in good and saying that give me fifty thousand dollars in the context of that history of information cases that he had pending at that time even though he only prevailed one he was seeking to turn the fees for the alternative method he was seeking to give the grand jury transcript he was checking up is really suggest you start checking with