from the district court judgments in both of these cases is whether the district court in denying ms brown fills request for attorney's fees pursuant to position that the district court did err in denying her request for attorney's fees because under the contractual provision for attorney's fees round hill was entitle to recover attorney's fees because mr richard brown in the district court proceeding did pursue a claim dispute or controversy against ms brown hill that was a proceeding other than the arbitration that was provided for the parties agreement and in particular in the district court proceeding  that's that's correct but if if if a party comes in and opposes the enforcement of the arbitration a work under that this is a contractual for it it's an attorney's fate provision vets to be interpreted because that's the governing that's correct but there's nothing in the in the in the statute that says that the parties are precluded from contracting that in the event that there is a claim dispute or controversy  let me give you an example of what you have up there which would be contrary to law it says in responding parties shall be entitled to dismissal injunctive probably other words if you oppose confirmation and you file so opposition under this provision you'd say that that the court would immediately dismiss the opposition and award attorneys fees and that can't be right it can't be under law they have a right to challenge confirmation h you explain the language about say in the they're entitled to a dismissal or an jumpy probably well i think in essence judge rather what we're talking about here is that if you come in and you and you make clearly agreement and dad says that dad if you pursue a claim disappear a controversy against the other in a proceeding other than the arbitration and clearly that's what the district court proceeding was known clearly and was in your review no this is you could never implemented at least you couldn't go to court to implement it well you can i mean certainly our position is that if there is that a party would have a right to go in and  confirmation of the award that's what ms brown phil did if there had been an unopposed no opposition to the confirmation then certainly ms brown phil would not have been entitled to attorneys fees because at that point there's no claim dispute or controversy in the language of this agreement but there is no provision in the federal arbitration act that says that the parties are precluded from allocating attorney's fees simply because there's a confirmation proceeding and our position is mr mister brown throughout this proceeding he was involved in a dispute or controversy and claim against brown pill that the arbitration award in several different respects was not valid it was not forcible which caused a significant briefing process in the district board was only because you couldn't persuade the district court that this was that every all these issues were for the arbitrator in which case you could have ignored ninety five percent of the twelve hundred pages well there was that there was an extensive summary judgment proceed just walk in that's the one that was in on march fourteenth two thousand and eleven right about here here briefing about all the money and all the attorney fees that were generated because of the extreme his issues that brown raised in the confirmation and when he decided certain things were for the court that exponentially multiplied the pleadings the file in turn and it did was still part of the confirmation process it was part of the confirmation process so you know you lost an issue that would save the most well we went through a summary judgment process in the district court as part of the the process to obtain an adjudication as to whether the arbitration award should be confirmed but if the if the issue of whether the arbitrator has the power to remove a trustee in a case of paralysis because there's an even number of trustees and there still may if that was an issue for the arbitrator the summary judgment proceedings would have been very different and the x the size of the pleadings would have gone from here to here well ultimately the district court asked the parties and i'm i think ultimately the district court permitted the parties to raise their arguments both in favor of confirmation the arbitration awards in france arguments against confirmation of the arbitration awards and allow the summary judgment proceeding as as the vehicle to make a determination as to whether between brown and brown bill if the core issues for the arbitrator are not for the court summary judgment proceedings become far too complex well perhaps but but nevertheless graham was permitted to make those arguments in that proceeding and brown still had to respond to them all of these pages and pages about florida  in accordance with the federal arbitration that is that i'm responding to here you know this is this is we should win because it's so dreadfully at all the way they got up the attorneys fees by raising issues other than you know core confirmation well they did it in the context of say the arbitrator didn't have the power to do that well they clearly raised that's a confirmation yes they raised   a confirmation or attempt to vacate an arbitration award and otherwise i mean you know the basic fundamentals here are there at the attorneys fees were heard in opposing the arguments that were case law or any law of any kind that says that the confirmation process is not part of the arbitration you're languages other than the arbitration provided you have any law that says a confirmation in federal court is not part of the arbitration process i don't i don't think that we've cited any specific case law on that judge where i live i mean clearly the arbitration process and the district court proceeding  different proceeds going to the district court proceeding as a core proceed and the arbitration hearing in front of the arbitrator labs and arbitration proceed and i don't think there's any suggestion you know in the language of this arbitration agreement that when they're referring to arbitration they're referring to a court proceeding in which an arbitration awarded so you're reconfirm ok your time your time the bought up but do you want to talk about the removal agreement the issues were raised the issue of mr round's removal was a dispute that existed between brown and around phil and that was properly presented to arbitrate a cloud and it was a that was held on december fifth two thousand and eleven which on behalf of brownsville we presented witnesses and exhibits in support of our position and the arbitrator issued an award with respect to the i'm not sure what other questions a court may have with respect to that ok well then let's hear from mr moore all right thank you award that he did and in brown one we have section ten day for excess of power arguments that are you know submission of disputes to the arbitrator and let me say right off the bat that we have never disputed that the issue of who gets to decide that issue is clearly for the arbitrator's  should the issue of of whether the condition proceed to submitting a dispute to arbitration titanite that procedural issues for the march ruling or are we have this is the march room in your honor ok yeah that those are for the arbitrator to decide but the district court here because having made that determination which was a correct determination it then assumed that there was nothing that there the district court then failed to do what the district court failed actually we always conceded that protract applied and prempro tex a great case because protract get it said yes it does to answer the question it did review it and came to the same conclusion is eoghan said in the alternative all that is you know so you're arguing an uphill battle because if we send it back to the district court just going to say well look at my footnote i've the issue of whether the brown one of the board should have been vacated because the arbitrator second guessed mr brown's broad discretionary authority that he ha terms of that in terms of the boise cascade we have cited for easy but we've cited a lot of other cases we didn't rely on the same kind of series of three or four yes as to which aren't substantial right and because of oxford but betrayer was manifest manifestly disregard of the arbitration award you mean you are on very thin ice you know what i'm what we're arguing is that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the trust agreement now that's all that's what the manifest disregard dr head oxford the supreme court decision in oxford and still nielsen make it quite clear i think that that that is a viable ground for review under are the the grants of discretion the very broad grants of discretion that are contained in the trust agreement we outline views and quite some detail in our briefs and they they make something about which they both have discussion that the arbitrator settles that agreement in a way that basically negate in this case mr brown's  well we'll take the discretion provisions out of the cot out of the trust agreement in and we can have a an arbitrator can come in to make the decision for us in the event of a tie then then yeah then they could delegate that to the overture but they can't do that invokes these special powers to deal with a stalemate that is threatening the life of the trust or its carpets right if yes or if i think that that is it just that that issue is in dispute as to whether that we have to go to that i think what the court would probably do would be encourage the parties to go of course selecting of course and yet but but you know there are there are still mates for sure that you know you know the result in the ongoing korean war you know at some point mike my point was that the trust law doesn't preclude because of the nontraditional settlement agreement provisions it does preclude parties from privately agreeing to  can't modify the trial so it's a more settling anything in march two thousand and ten they were they were dealing with the possibility that there might be a stalemate that could jeopardize the trust in its assets documents and you may be right about that but what is it that you're asking to be done because the agreement clearly says that that the award operates as authority then you just take it to a third party and authority that the parties clearly did not or did not strike clearly well in mumbai my point is the result is the same i mean you're you're just saying well the arbor can't sign the documents but the party bro they'll can go in and just hand their ward to somebody and in the same way you end up with the same result are you saying that that there's anything different than that well it's a little different because i think maybe we're putting i mean nobody disputes that th back back to court again but the result somehow you have to enforce the award and all i'm trying to find out is what would the difference do you think that it is other than ok well we we have the other arguments in terms of the abuse of my eye i know that i'm just talking about enforcing the award well sign the document so you and standard stein you take them and say i have this award that says i when i mean the other side says so how has it changed anything here i think you it changes things to the extent it is what it emits long as it is clear that the arbiter didn't have that authority i think that that that the the wrong that was done with respect to that you know this this that sentence out out of the award where are you i'm assuming well i think everything else remains to say yeah i mean if every if the court were to reject all of our other arguments and we would at  to do that so it's not really a it's not a it's not a hypothetical question and it is how i understand what was in brown to you raise the argument the browns children were necessary parties to the arbitration but you didn't raise that until much later why are you raise and you didn't raise them brown one or a news some of these other things why or why all of you for that i mean there's obviously a waiver issue but is there some reason why all of a corpus to the same extent as a change of management a change of title that to the assets that was affected by the route of the resignation removal thought from one was a dispute over a hard dollars well i think as a district court says if you get new trustees and of the beneficiaries think they're doing wrong i challenge yet the the the thing with brown too though is that the court subject matter  based on the importance of the change of management over the trust assets and if you look at it we're not talking just about interested parties necessary bars we're talking about interested parties i mean they're clearly he's the the browns children did not agree to arbitrate brown's children you know it and now you know if we if we were to accept the you know virtual this last sentence in the march fourteenth two thousand and eleven arbitration where i mean our position is it really wouldn't you know if you remove that sentence from the award and we're i mean that's not going to change the substance of where we're at today that the arbitration award of march fourteenth two thousand and eleven was ultimately confirmed and you know the substance of that award is that when my question more is of that sentence is stricken can you still of these distributions were made until after the arbitration award was confirmed by the district court so the arbitration award was not you know enforced or acted upon until after the district court confirm arbitration and certainly the you know once the arbitration order was confirmed even without the last sentence i mean it's effective to permit those transfers that's what they were  makes it a a court judgement that can be enforced and that's effectively what happened with respect to that secondly with respect to the minor children i think the a couple points to make the district or point out there that you know in dealing with the trustee removal issue there was no accounting issue whatsoever that was being dealt with in the district court believed permit their relieve that was being sought by brownfield secondly we cited some cases in our briefing with respect to this doctrine has been represented a number of cases where you have a virtual representation situation where the the interests of mr brown and his minor children are aligned and he effectively represented their interests in connection with the trustee removal claim that was part of the arbitration proceeding through that was heard on december fifth