the first issue is whether or not the petition to revive has the judgment defter was properly served in so the question that's been raised is whether or not service of this type of petition fission revive  should be served under one of five the four it should be served on the one of four the second issue with regard to service his whether equity in little little instruction with regard to this case would allow service efforts that maybe october of two thousand and five in june of two thousand and nine essentially then remained in active for five years i think it was technically mormon forty nine years and then a petition to revive was file people think what the hell he is arguing here is that really under any run of the mill petition of revive that service on a judgment day after his former attorney has sufficient despondence which were not the judgment debtors is that we made arguments that were attacking this petition to revive it as to talks as we look at this petition to revive judgment it's found that issue it misnamed the correct judgment doctors and it didn't have proper service you know this was it's an unusual case from a factual background but this is one that you think if i got my notes here you know relates to a product sold and in one nine hundred eighty nine it's a trial that i think starts a suit that's filed ninety three are defendants are brought in hundred ninety four to proceed to trial in ninety one sorry two thousand and five and during the course of trial and i think your honor was on this appeal during the course of trial our clients were voluntarily and then you know one year after there is no refined so they pursued the case against the primary defendant the swirling they got judgment against that art has the us they dismissed this out of the suit after directed verdicts were the first off i think that standing merely requires that we have some type of interest in this nation that we're fighting for something that we're not here before the court even circuit court elop or the supreme court on issues that don't really matter to fundraise than the record at the time most of the revived judgment was made what's your interest as opposed to someone who says here's a copy shop heard about this interesting case and try to revise this judgement i don't i think they're just too late i'm going to lie think the concern that we have and it's a concern that's raised by sending our firm notice of this petition and identifying our clients in this case is that we're going to try to claim that standing at the point that the interest revived or the position revive was made whether or not something could something to judgment is revived then the next step i guess you're assuming it's going to happen is  judgment but they they filed suit against us and after that judgment was entered against the primary judgment after they did try collection efforts against us and the third they filed this petition revived against us so we think based upon all that you know we question why we identified and in a petition revived when there was no judgment why were we given notice the same way they're attempting to give notice to the other entity and i think the answer is that at least happen i don't think of the facts support that i just took to the extent that is a finding of the trial court that is absolutely against the manifest where the evidence but our pleadings none of our pleadings identify as representing name we made arguments that were i think i call it defensive as to the positions taken against our clients and i think here we're really challenging this  finding by the charge and i think from really from france counsel's perspective i think it's very concerning because if i walk into court defending my client do i have to be concerned about any type of argument that i made that could be viewed as going to fishel to another defendant that has appeared or is not that is really concerning finding that by you know making arguments that might benefit them as well that we somehow interference on do something that was really far beyond what i think we recognized that was proper so yeah that that i do think is is really an out of the box crazy finding it's a it certainly is a dangerous finding to defense counsel all throughout the state the judgement against for oh well i'm arguing that we at least have standing to object because we have an interest we have an interest i think under the rodriguez case we've got a sufficient interest that requires us to allow us to really raise the question there's action honestly even if we weren't here the question of jurisdiction i don't think ever goes away if that if this order and this vote doesn't someone have to show up and reason well so the question is who are about well that is that is a different interesting argument because i think ultimately the bottom line is that under the case of the already under the rule under the statute service on a they get your client that somehow it didn't work into a judgment against your client and it being a bot that's that's correct what we want to do is we just want to make sure that there is nothing entered against us that's going to harm us now against you but i think but we know by their collection efforts by that notion internal that that's the next step that's the next step is coming after us now this is all disputed us to what these coming here today to see if you're holding any property that last wore out well they've made the argument in this motion for eternal that in an asset sale that our companies not with with the purchase of the assets also assume the obligations of lower out now we dispute that but we believe that's the next step is that in itself is a totally it's a it's it is a very different issue that i have concerns with because of course we were in the original trial we got dismissed case so now instead of having a trial against us on some of these issues of of what obligations we have in the motion for turnover they went after us arguing that this contract makes us liable for the debts of this other but that's where they went with the motion for turn and so if that's the next step which we believe it will be is that can we challenge jurisdiction of the original order that allowed revile in addition to the other challenge an effort to revise revive the judgment i think under rodriguez yeah i think it does it's it's not the jurisdiction over means it's the jurisdiction to enter the order on the petition to revive against the judgment that's it and i honestly think that the circuit court has an obligation to determine the jurisdiction was election efforts against us you know i think that we have that interest in it last heard of rodriguez it should not preclude a veiled super being this is a valid issue the question of standing shouldn't preclude that  motion to reconsider was correct for two reasons first the the trial judge correctly held that service five mail on the attorney of record for a defunct corporation under the facts of this case worse fission to revive the judgment and second the defendants in this case do lack the standing necessary to challenge the circuit court's order granting a revival of the judgment against for alec why did you not in your fear relieve requests that the judge would be revived again we specifically see that the judgment in this case was not revived against the defendants it was revived only against l'oreal but my question is why did you file it now it was it mi honor it was incorrectly filed to get we knew that the judgment was against for a link and that's who the judgement is revived against now whether the defendant wants to engage in kind of conjecture and guesswork as to what the next step would be in this case that doesn't establish standing on the defendant to come in and challenge a judgment that was not revived against them as this court pointed out during counsel's argument not anyone can come in and challenge a judgment that an answer to guess them whether what the next step might be in this case is not relevant to whether or not the defendants had standing to challenge and order against an entity who the defendants have said they want there to represent rule one of the six specifically says that notice of the filing a petition to revive a judgment has to be given via the same methods prescribe in one hundred five for giving notice to important things that that will states first it's focused on the word notice but more importantly it specifically says who want five and i guess that's where the parents know it was a big problem here where it was served or more lawyers taxi service versus ireton if you are faced with a situation where you either served by publication or serve the attorney of record for the party publication is a far preferred method of service per par reading a rule one of five a that supported by the case law in the natural reading rule one five a provides that we conserve by the methods provided in rule want to all four if that party is entitle the notice under  so the question becomes whether or not or allen or paraded was a party in title the notice under rule want to four and what the defendants want to do in this case is they want to completely ignore rule one hundred five a like it's not there but there's nothing which permits regular mail known as to a party one has appeared in two has not been found to be in the fall and this is where it comes into play and it's important to see what relief has been sought  incorporated it's not relief against the defendants and the defendants in their brief admit that attorney william a summer men represented for al incorporated and there had been no withdraw or compass rule one for we have to look to the equity in the liberal liberal construction of rule one hundred five and that supports the regular mail notice in this case and going back to that ireton case that the first district said the rule one hundred five is to be nor should we be expected or climbing to jump through these hoops when there is such an easy available means to you so republican you should and then we don't have to and if you don't we're not inclined to jump through hoops and forgot about it why should we just say that i certainly judge and i would say that that is it goes back to the statement and ireton that i you and what are you doing here well i think the judge was also since the issue was to revive the judge revokes laura not specifically in those words but i think that based on the language of of the order from judge rush i think there was some concerns that this court also had based on some of the mixing of the arguments it seems to be that the defendants were in fact making the arguments on behalf of more al and it in fact that the defense f waiver issue that the defendants did in fact show up and they argue the merits of this case they filed pleadings they filed responsive pleadings they filed issues on behalf of war alley who cares because  of the notice issue if they were going to file responsive pleadings in this case they clearly felt the that they were able to file responsive pleadings in this case they could have very easily said no this was not properly given to or elling before any of the proceedings ever started that's the purpose of the special limited appearance to contest jurisdiction based on notice they didn't do it and to basically say now that they could not have raised those arguments before is to ignore the responses and replies that they filed before ever raising interest actual issue in their motion to reconsider so it comes back to basically two options that either had the standing to raise those issues before when they were filing all their response of documents and the should raise those issues or the second option they didn't have standing to do so in the first place can't be told to either should raise them or they couldn't term rates and i think that that speaks a separate issue in this case and that stand g and the defendant does lack standing to challenge this order granting revival as this court in her work verses were pointed out generally only a party to a judgment may be secretly from it and this court defined in that case what a party is and that is one who was named and it was probably even server and are going to parents not named anywhere in the judgement and they're here saying that they they weren't properly served and that they didn't enter an appearance if they would like to concede that then we would see it standing but that's not what they're doing and so they have to focus on these narrow exceptions to nonparty standing in order to have standing this case and the narrow exception they seem to be focusing on is is that they are injured by that judgement or they would devote derive benefit for its reversal but they haven't been injured by the judgement these defendants were never injured by a structure that the judgment was not revised against them whether or not something might argument in our motion to reconsider and we make that argument front of this court the judgment was never entered against or out products and adham that the defendant sort of brought the appeal in front of the score so they do in fact lack standing to make that argument their whole basis their whole argument for standing is what may happen in the future or what might get done and that's just that's simply too too much conjecture to establish and i think you move to dismiss the one one seven one two one one eight they are saying that we assume liability so they maintain their position that they should have just been entered against us they weren't saying like the same theory or today that abbott just meets in the states with revive a judgement against someone i agree where there's been no just remember enter put them we get finally we get to the order of the court which was just by a memorandum originally and he makes you know a number of findings this interest under the rodriguez case for standing by we still maintain standing not only there to continue our objections but here to to maintain well i think record you know it i don't know if it's a jurisdictional there but i think th trial proceedings that you seek to appeal from since there was sloppy practice of bad practice by the plaintiff to include your clients but the order centered might clear of course judgement against be revived when there is no judgement to begin with and judge reddish made it clear that now this is just laurel it's not products or cam so the question is who are you and what are you doing here in a telling with a lawyer if there is no this is not like you fail to file a notice heal and timely fashion all that this is a more fluid area it's to make sure that we're fighting for something that i'm actually here not rolling over because i don't care it's to make sure that i'm here arguing a position and i'm argument hard and i'm arguing with diligence i'm hardly people that's what rodriguez talks about that's withstanding that you have people before the court that are actually arguing these issues and that's what i'm doing here and that's what we have so i think the standing issue it really is it's a bit of a red here and i think the question really does come down to jurisdiction and they didn't