away which is the estate in which these claims were filed as part of that estate mr biddle was entitled to receive a certain sum of money and i don't have the exact amount right front of me but i believe it was somewhere around eleven thousand dollars satisfaction of the judgments that were owed to them and i was invited by the record as you can see on this question was able to obtain a motion for turnover order in december of two thousand and eight about a week prior to that turned over order we had filed a state claim on behalf of the singly in an attempt to also in force her judgment and it ended in the hopes of being was no determination as to whether mr bennett was going to get any money or you know how much money you might be entitled to receive as part of the estate what was that was completed the trial court held a hearing to determine you know how to split on a program basis the situation both parties were standing in the same shoes and both parties had the same rights both parties had the same claim against the against the proceeds in this triple c m this is not a case where one party had a secured claim and another party has unsecured claim or you know one party had some type of agreement security agreement that was done prior to the other this is just too unsecured creditors who have judgments against mr bedell going to court and asking them to try to stand in the same shoes and there is no there's no real priority as far as any type of security interest or in any other type of statute with that would grant any priority to one party person and so one of our requests to the court adjudicated these these claims on a program basis based on the fact that both parties stood in the same shoes and neither party technically would have had priority in the alternative though what we're looking at is because that based on the turnover orders the miss gresham was able to obtain the first turn over and there's no dispute as to that and so if you're looking at just pacifically those turnover orders   it would seem like that the based on the way that these claims are typically handled it should be paid on a program of basis in the alternative we would we would argue that our citation lean would have given us the priority versus the i guess i'm the way that the way that i viewed it when it was put into the order because i mean if you look at the order i got drafted the first half of the order and then discretion of counsel reviewed it and want to put that language on the bottom we didn't discuss what the language meant at the time that it was written and all and so like i said having done you know a lot of work and involving hospital means my my part of the matter is well one lean is always subject to the fact that there might be another and if you have to limit you know i mean if you're the only holder then you're entitled to whatever whatever for surveiled pay but if there is too late holders then your lead is going to be subject to the fact that there's another lin and so you may not get technically everything you can recover because a portion of that's going to be paid to another leave home and even the language of the suicide it would mean in small claims practice for  two or three different people get a judgement and i'm talking about people not in these like or cases that involve a lead spy hospital but just individual creditors for whatever reason you're correct and they get judged and then one of them does something to pursue the judgment and the others do something but they don't do it until later are they certain citation but there's no action on that citation for a year a year and a half  to the judgments have priority is the person who pursues the judgment have priority is the person who acts with diligence you have priority do people who agree to the insertion of playing great you're in the case of satisfying judgments this proceedings how about analogizing it in just ordinary well practices and small you know creditors well i guess i guess just hypothetically i think it would i guess i would it would depend on exactly what was done and what wasn't done i mean didn't just sit and wait for six and a half years and probably not have to do anything you know well i mean you're taking the chance you're going to walk into something i've got to go back case but i would say i would see real reason why why that would be the case if the judgment is good for seven years and the citation made attaches to the you know whatever property so and that that money has been paid i mean if mr biddle owes the money he hasn't paid it and they have seven years to collect it why wouldn't it continue for those for that seven years it just it just seems logical to me that that would be the way it would work i mean yeah you probably just probably the best way to handle things if you want to do something to try to collect on that judgment if there are any assets available but if as we did at the time of the citation determined that mr bittle didn't really have any assets at that time but yet we continue to you know we adjourn the citation to continue it you've got the judgment in that money is up and then the lane is established by serving the citation then as long as the judgment is still collectible that there's no reason why the lien that's associated with that judgment would not  are the magic words that are required to continue it but if you look at what the court did i panic i don't know that joining the citation is any different than what happened in that case and in that case the court found you know year and a half later which this which is almost the really that it's the exact same situation essentially as private ok and you know i mean and maybe there needs to be some clarification as to what's required to extend that but it's always been our understanding that if the citation is a  the citation hearing if i didn't see it and it is maybe it's in there and i missed it i believe i believe i cited to it in my brief as well some i'm pretty sure it's it was it was attached owned with someone else and so i'm not finding the order but i know that the book basically oh here it is on us that's in march it guess it was continued to morning your honour's counsel have pleas for your honour's for the two reasons the judge pacey ordered the money to be turned over to my client there is no basis for reversal in this case i respectfully disagree with counsel that the parties were in heaven were in the same shoes same position for the two reasons the first reason is if february sixth two thousand and eight order which was entered and missing lease arbitration case that was case number zero eight eight four three six that is the order that has the language subject to m language to that order on february sixth in fact i was not a proper or a counsel in that arbitration case missing glee's case i had nothing to do with that case other than that we were tracking other individuals that had claims or had potential claims where they were going to try to collect against mr bedell i appeared in court on the day attorney is not wrong in his ruling is that the citation which was issued in december of two thousand and seven had clearly expired supreme seven states that was not done and for those two reasons yes i would say that if in fact the court is looking at that language of subject to something that was drafted by myself because it was in our order then i clearly did not have any intentions of of that language creating a priority for from this question that was never the it was never my understanding of what that language and it would mean and so therefore you know you know i just i think as she would cited you know in her brief it just means you know under the influence of the know their orders and i don't think that it doesn't say this question has priority or that her they are playing a subordinate to hers or anything along those lines it just it's just it's just in my mind it was just simply acknowledging the fact that miss gresham had a note had a claim as well and that she had a legitimate