not withstanding both of these rulings and indeed completely contras ery to them and later judge in the same case determine a prior and forcible agreement that exists in august of two thousand and twelve the nd judge and true judgment for seven hundred and ninety eight thousand dollars twenty cents aber of crystal against haney premised on an agreement previously ruled on a forcible the judgment was off let me let me ask your question to get get to the bottom line because we're we're familiar with the background but you disagree with the nd or the last in time rule or think it's not washington law anyway i guess my main question for your side if the last in time rule isn't the rule evidence before it instead of relying on a default judgment and then that default judgment i missed only hearing damage so there's there's i guess there's two aspects to your argument one is the nd judgment shouldn't have to effect because it was at the fall let's put that on i understand that let's put that on the side just for the moment it's church but the nd argument i have is that the nd judgment shouldn't have reclusive effect  sort of makes sense in your favor judge it is what makes sense from my point of ok and the other questions your honour's not yet go ahead  is it really a default judgment i mean did show up in the case of the beginning i think he answered or disappeared for a while then dropped out so is it really a pure default situation that should not have any precludes with a judge of the that his business participated as a party and he even participated pro se so when it came down to the nd case yes he made he filed an answer and how to play but he never actually waived the right to participate as a party yes i defied i'm never quite heard that a court used that phrase before but that's what the court said yes it is a little bit confusing her for years well  he was a party he chose not to be a party but participated in the trial was a witness and men then i got appeal and then the pfeiffer kaita portion as to is does not run harmoniously with what the court of appeals affirmed and that is that mr crystal no point had any equitable or legal interest in stat network senator you're saying it's like two separate cases then the st case did not involve your client the nd case did and there's inconsistent judgments between these two cases is that right  case had him involved for some reason he stopped being involved whether that was on legal advice or just for ease of the court that's what happened i didn't participate in that those cases but that's what i read from the this is better there we got you know we don't know issues in a one million with things i'm not going to go over any of the facts but i did want st thing st point out that there are no transcripts regarding the proceedings it's opportunity to litigate the issues determining the nd state court judgement he got notice he chose not to show up he substantively lost the remaining claims that weren't addressed in the st half and that's i think one of the most important that's why the policy around all of the states although sometimes this is the states don't follow that washington's never been a state that hasn't followed and that is the overwhelming majority rule and so i think that s what is the scope of what could be determined and what couldn't in not st half we need to figure that out because if it's not actually litigated we don't have any clues in the back and how do we determine that it is pretty easy from the record  him is it really clear that it's only a rd party i mean the court didn't say that part right i mean your that's one thing the court could have said but the court really didn't say that i think the court went a little bit beyond that in saying yeah there was a contract that was enforceable for the transfer of that interest but in stating that that's what the parties had agreed to do if the court goes beyond that then my was an agreement sure yes because if if if there and the court said enforceable agreement that yeah those are different because even if they maybe never reached an agreement there could still be an opportunity that they shared between him and that he usurped that opportunity there still could have been a future in relationship that started i mean if i go into a partnership with my friend and we say we're going to do were issues that needed to be litigated in the nd half and they weren't they weren't addressed by express limitation of what was going to be litigated in the st in who the parties were it was not it's not  and it turned out to be two judges that if he had appeared in the nd half which he received notice then and he could have made those arguments and it could have been clarified it was his decision not to do that and not to bring those arguments out th well if this was our business why haven't you helped me out by paying all of these legal fees to fight with these guys who have his interests and so if it's a bit of alternative pleading type argument that he abandoned that the st or last in time rule which which would control in washington and i think that before we even get there we should look at this civil rule sixty or c r sixty as we call it in washington c r sixty is a court has jurisdiction over you in washington you need to seek to set it aside and give your justifications using the listed factors and they say it cannot be gladder lee tapped on the side into the authority and so any was subject to the jurisdiction of the washington court because he answered the complaint and he even filed a counter so it is that he will be found by a judgment if one's entered against and c r sixty gives hany all the remedies and substance of due process he needs to set aside that judgment if you feels that it was unfair and just like the last time while in washington you have to raise your defenses including raise your caught if if you have that defense and so if we look at before sitting  judgment aside in washington they consider one whether the defendant has meritorious to advance to the reason the defendant fails with your three whether the defendant acted diligently upon learning of the deval and for effect on the pla judgment is vague so any conclusively received notice we know that because that was based on finding of fact and we don't have the transcript of course and so he received notice relating to the trial and the notice of judgment that was interviewed against him in the mail and that's that he got notice he needed to see our sixty he has the court had jurisdiction to collaterally attack at this at this juncture is just it's it's inappropriate  very clearly and it also gives instance after instance in the notes in the examples of where the courts have upheld that rule  on to just point out that you need to you need to make these arguments yourself the court's not going to do it for you and the decision not to raise the price or to discontinue the contest concerning its effect by failing t opportunity for direct you review settles the matter and so that has been that has been the overwhelming majority of the bankruptcy courts analysis the trial court in bankruptcy its analysis was correct c r sixty supports the last in time approach the nd restatement supports the approach and as i cited in my brief the washington practice series which is used by all of us attorneys in washington briefly analyze that that's not what occurred event offensive issue preclusion is a plaintive sitting on the sidelines waiting for negligence to be found based on conduct that injure him and another plant like a motor vehicle accident it claimed it to decision and i'm happy to answer any questions and questions from the panel thank you no ok all right thank you very much mr riad you have about seven and a half minutes i think so if you want to use we come down to is had there been and no decision from the state court finding that hany converted or you served any business opportunity from crystal we would not have had to go to a five day trial where the court had to have seen evidence and witnesses from the plaintiff in what happened is the court took all th ruled on the merits or essentially the evidence presented before it because of as the evidence presented before it may be a different decision could have been made  decision was the improper are if the state court decision had reclusive a fact as stated by the bankruptcy court then we should have never gone to trial to participate so i just i open for questions i don't have any any panelists any question thank you thank you thank you for your time this morning ok thank you both for very good arguments the matter submitted and you'll be getting our decision in due course thank you thank you