law when the person who is to be a stopped acquired its interest prior to the commencement of the previous litigation converse lee if that person would be a stopped when they acquired their interests subsequent to the contrary to your disposition in this case of aegis counsel disclose the case and we entered into a supplemental briefing about the effect of your option and the district court nonetheless dismissed the case based on  gary bachman and other lessees were not parties to that would occasion were not satisfied with the results and so they brought a subsequent action in front of a different judge raising the exact same products that judge disagreed with the  reform if there is clear and convincing evidence and mystical did attempts to reform the d n a on least some of the evidence that we would be relying upon for purposes of reformation  to to explain some of the documents the instruments that are out record that show unequivocally without a doubt in our experts mind at least that they did it rule was not intended there are certain mathematical computations under a delay rental stipulation under the a certain when gas leases when you tie up the lease bonuses that were paid on a perch basis there's absolutely no doubt that the do it rule was not intended and so that's really what went wrong and so this would be no different then then what the outcome in the in the gary pocket case is that a nd cut federal judge could effectively overrule or disagree with a state trial judge but that in of itself we don't think prevail only one th royalty interest which is sixteen sixty seven percent so that tallied up ninety nine sixty seven percent or whatever it is that's enough high but judgments could be honored and we don't think that the had some kind of climate record so that they could be joining in the action is it not that way this would normally were correct i think that if you look at the north dakota quiet join parties and a roll nineteen and the ability to obviously go and do whatever title examination that they think is necessary to bring in all the parties who may be affected by the judgement and if they do that and don't join certain parties or they they neglect to do that and fail to join certain parties if those interests were acquired prior to the commencement of the litigation goes in for a search is simply not part of the litigation and that enters the quiet little judgment prevail  have a better argument but they made the argument and they lost i don't know how we get around that statement doesn't apply how do we know which theories are privity they were determining in this case we know that they didn't consider your theories are pretty and rejected by reading the list i want to ask you kind of a variation on the question the practical question i have your way with all this be avoided and isn't it routinely avoided  lessee of the men are just like in order and the court there said that would have been dispositive the court could have disposed of the entire case they're not even gotten to the merits of the title issue and the court didn't do that the court dispensed a better argument as my transferees would be precluded even where they had eroded wired or interests of record prior to the litigation and had no notice of it and that's exactly what the north dakota supreme course is preventing here each party if they their interests before the litigation gets their day in court it's a bright line rule and in situations where that occurs the transfer or no longer owns the interest is not adequately representing the interests of transferee there are distinct finkel transferred out of lease hold the states in order she doesn't a lease hold the state actually she transferred to montana oil properties who in turn transferred it to northern she doesn't represent the same legal right it's  it's a stick that's been carved out of a bundle of sticks to kind of go back to the old property law class and and it's not subject to the litigation if it's been carved out transferred prior to action just one comment on rule sixty if the judgment is void or or not binding against northern we don't have to go under rule sixty that we would we want to part of those proceedings i see my time is up if i'm if i may have permission to finish the thought of going to the car we were not because of those proceeds as a part and we can do exactly what we just did and file us that separate suit in federal court against the competing interest on thank you