easy to get bogged down i think in some of the history and salacious details of the litigation in this case but what's present before this court today i believe is a relatively straightforward issue on whether the federal district court judge lindsey in this case whether he erred by issuing an injunction that cut short a probate court proceeding that he had previously deferred to well to cut even further to the chase so we have to we have to address our jurisdiction  st of all so if we were let's say hypothetically we were to reverse in your favor what actual relief could we award to you such that this case would not be moved  that's a that's a great question and there suddenly there are some there are several areas of of relief that i believe this case would not be the st of all if the court were to reverse  not a pending order that we could appeal to the to the state of illinois or right now but we could go back to the probate court and ask for perhaps a new reconsideration of what we believe is a wrong ruling by the probate court that that with some circular just what is the status and probate court but surely something has moved along in that court we're not where we were when your client went on challenging the two will that that's that that's exactly right and this goes to evidence to know i'm sorry my question one very good which is true of most surely where are we in the probate court now what stage hasn't there been some disbursement of fons and there may be some does that the answer is i'm not entirely   that if we have to find out what stage we are when we get to the probate court but there is what what was your relief bay because you come up with the argument oh we're not contesting the will were contesting that it is the will right and so that will go if it's not the will there is some other document that is the will and you don't get me thing under that you being your client there is a there is a will that was in effect i believe prior to the settlement agreement and if that's the last will and testament i don't plea that necessarily is correct but you your client gave up his claim to any farms he the right to contest any will right we wouldn't we would not be contesting it either goes intestate without a will or we would not be contesting a will a will it is in probate we would not be contesting that will or any property disbursement under that will but that not a will i mean this is how many lawyers are you down the chain how many people are many lawyers of mr hill and sets of lawyers i couldn't i actually don't know the answer to question i know there's been multiple in there was different attorneys fees that my client has to pay to the other side in connection with the in connection with the but the proceedings in the probate court and that's currently in front challenge right right or issue an order that and that could then be appealed and so the process can run through in the state court which already happened right it happened except under protest we were required to withdraw judge lindsey ordered attorneys fees and he told you to file papers now you're telling us which was the st time i believe we parted that that question is before the master judge because one consideration here is  to you know that the question of attorney's fees and that's going on and i'm sure it'll be augmented with how many thousands of dollars have been had to be spent on this appeal but you're not saying that alone keeps this appeal  move to to withdraw our appeal but the other is an after the fact order for us to pay the attorneys fees for the proceedings that took place in the probate court which get into the substance of  you appealing that part of the injunction that part is being appealed as well worth we're seeking to reverse the entire you know that because a way you just stated it the part of the injunction that says you have to take down your state of appeal i don't understand how that's not moot your state court appeals part of the injunction that respects the state court appeal is obviously there's nothing the state a public court can do with respect to what's gone isn't i believe that's correct as far as the state court appeal but that doesn't make this appeal don't know the extent it asked for reversal of the injunction with respect to the state appellate court proceeding it as well but the injunction is farther than that because the injunction said we cannot make any argument in the probate court or  good example because that and that that you know brings up the chicken and the egg is it would basically what we have here is a chicken and egg situation and you know this is a very unique situation but there are other lawsuit in violation of that then then clearly they could either get in and just go to the to the courthouse and getting injunction or motion to dismiss or something along those lines because the parties of agree that it's it's situation where you're not contesting the arbitration clause you're contesting the fact that this is not even a document in his name in a contract that i'm a party to ok i see in the what you're saying i think you're saying that if the proponents of the will come into probate court and say here's the will and your challenge is that signature is a forgery that is not a contest to the last will and testament of algae right because that is not because the document itself its that would be one example but it's also a new it's also a little what's what's weird here a different is usually these no contest provisions are in the will itself you have a separate document that was executed four years before the alleged will at issue in this case and so that i guess if a challenge to the signature let's just entertain that for a nd for the sake of argument why isn't the same challenge an additional action lawsuit or legal proceeding challenging the disposition of his property which is also in the new code because it's the same it's the same argument which is you're not challenging the disposition of property if your challenge is the document itself is not a valid document it's not as clean i grant you that but it's it's the same concept because how can i be making a challenge to the decision of property that's not what i'm doing the other issue just briefly before my time runs out i just want to highlight for the record is the injunction itself but what lobby standing our papers for for the arguments but one key argument relates to irreparable may please the court i like to begin my argument judge barksdale and try to respond directly to your question about where we are in the probate because i think it also goes to why the significance of why we judge lindsay intern injunction judge lindsay was has been very patient with this case in its history tons of warnings have been issued prior to this injunction where we are in the probate is that the will has been probated however there has not been full distribution of funds  is will which is in the record in this case provided for significant gifts to charity he was a charitable person he wanted to leave a significant amount of it states as charity those disposition those charitable disposition have not occurred because we're still dealing with this problem without three attempting to interfere with the estate it's causing to harm to prevent the administration of the state and of course of gifts had been made off to rd parties  charities it be very difficult to to get them back one day we have a situation though where the district judge has been been very patient the order that is before the court is the injunction order and it is mostly moot and i do want to be very clear entirely that's correct your honor and i want to be very clear about that by saying mostly moot because most of the appellate briefing is all about the and i injunction act in the interference of the state court appeal that's absolutely moot there are is part of the injunction or that's not because the injunction order also has a forward looking injunction to prevent any additional contests to the will or proceedings that is not movement this appeal awesome you would argue is mind your honor i wish i could could tell you that i would say it's ninety percent and let me let me explain the the appeal in the focus of the appeal and from the briefing that what you read about is reinstate the state court  proceeding or let us go back to the probate about the will that is all moot and i will talk briefly about probate jurisdiction but the reason i can't say a one hundred percent it's moot is because there is the forward looking part of the injunction for example in order that's moved paragraph one is a broader injunction about contesting the will which would stop alfhild the rd from going back to the probate court again if if something happened in trying once again to upset the state that's of orders that are treated as final judgments even though the entire probate has not been finished or resolved an example is a probating of a will when you have that final order which is what is necessary to take an appeal and  he'll the rd recognized that the order of sustaining the objections to his is will contest and probating the will in appointing ms keller as the is the executor that qualifies as a final order for have peace miller's it's it's not a perfect analogy but it's like bankruptcy you can have appeals out of a bankruptcy proceeding and that appeal when it is in the orders in or it goes on appeal whether the appeal is of farms were dismissed it's  final order it is not subject to collateral attack in a subsequent proceeding so al hill the rd cannot go back to the probate court and to ask for reconsideration of the order the probate court has lost jurisdiction because that order is final with the dismissal of the appeal thing that's moot for reasons that are similar to why the huge anjan with respect to the state appellate processes yes that is exactly right it's the same issue i misunderstood wh said it's not because forward looking provisions what is not the fact that given the history of this case given the behavior of the repeated violations of court orders violations of the injunction we have a federal court order telling him knock it off and while it's moot if he tries to go forward to assert a new proceeding in the state courts to interfere with the disposition of property he should be held accountable for violating judge lindsay's federal court injunction that injunction was necessary i think it's well justified by the history of this case that portion of the junction looking to forward looking conduct is not moot the nuvi case that we the yes you're on and it also gets picked up i believe in some of the subsequent paragraphs after the number of paragraphs when it talks about the council not being able to take certain actions but as this court recognized in the newbie case that we've cited in our briefing an injunction against future actions it doesn't have any anti injunction act implications at all it's perfectly fine courts deal with vexatious litigants all the time and one of the ways they're dealt with is with an injunction requiring them to stop filing lawsuits that's what the parties were hoping for that's what judge lindsay's order says we've cited some examples in the briefing of the history of this case and i know this court has seen quite bit from this case but the orders that have led to this of this injunction and in fact the contempt ruling that has been entered since the injunction didn't come just out of the blue there's been warnings  this case we have examples of warnings that we cited in our brief from this court from two thousand and fourteen the district court from two thousand and fourteen but just in preparing for the argument i thought i would highlight one from two thousand and seventeen so even more recent page tw and forty seven of the record judge lindsay the court has been patient with out three however the record indicates that he is dismissive of the court and he believes he is exempt from complying with court orders or that  some kind of special dispensation when it comes to such compliance judge lindsey i think is this court knows is a very even keeled patient in the end and he's the one entering these orders because we are error in entering the injunction i under certainly understand what the question is coming from but that is the next thing i want to talk about because the injunction forward looking is not only justified based on the prior history of this case it's justified based on the very contract clauses in final injunction clause that are issued before the court and judge duncan i believe you are the one for pointing out the language in the no contest clause it's not just you can't challenge the will it also prevents challenging keller testified at the hearing just warned him not to excuse any of the formalities for proving up a will all she did is told al three you agreed you weren't going to contest the will we're not going to allow you to contest the will and there's this w testimony and the support for the actual will from the signatories to say this is the valid will there's no substantive differences i mean my best guess is there some kind of maybe a clerical issue or something but the record is silent as to what happened we have a will proved up with sworn witnesses proved up with a notary compliance with texas law with no one other than al three objecting and his children objecting he's the one who gave up his right to object in paragraph twenty nine of the final judgment it's in a waiver of standing section i mean how clear can you get he's waving his standing he received over one hundred million dollars in return his father was getting the benefit of not having al three obstruct the estate he's trying to retrain the deal judge lindsay was correct because if you read the plain language of the settlement agreement and final judgment it's very clear as to what was bart i do want to briefly talk about texas law on will contests because one of the arguments you heard a little bit of this today that you see a lot in the briefs is to say oh we're not contesting the will we're just trying to make sure that the proponents of the will have to meet all the formalities and then of course they say that's not the signature and all these other excuses that are classic will contests the problem with that argument i would suggest that the court take a look at the crouch croucher case from the texas supreme court that is a case the opening lines of the texas supreme court in the case was this is a will contest period and then it goes on to describe what was it issue husband don's wife is moving for probate of the will the children opposed and said no dad did not have capacity that will is not valid the same posture al three is in didn't matter that didn't matter supreme court said this is a will contest this is exactly the kind of conduct alfre at least in fact are not my apathetic oh but hypothetically if there were two different well with signatures that didn't match it seems to me it's not a will contest to say we've got a sound which will is the real will but it's not contesting the will is determining what is the will and there's a fund that to me is not a will contest i don't think those are the facts but those are not the facts your honor and the situation if in your hypothetical someone has to go to court to probate the will they have to sponsor testimony have to prove it up and have to meet all the formalities of texas law for proving up the will and that it gets handled in the probate court that did happen here if there was someone with standing that's the key if there someone had the right to object an error someone with that would actually have an interest that has not been waived or given up by contract like al three did they can come to the court and say no i actually have the right will and then you have competing parties none of whom have waived their rights trying to prove up their interest here we have no competing party no other party other than al three who on of quickly gave up his right in twenty two and so i'm looking at the final judgment and paragraph twenty nine bret's that's what that's what i should refer to and in two thousand and ten when that was agreed to when you say he bartered out away forgive me if i've got the chronology wrong you you  correct me was there a will at that point or were we looking prospectively and saying well you know in event there's a probate and they'll be a will you can't can come in and contest so your honor i'm going to start with a little bit of a  say i'd be shocked if there wasn't a list ok i personally wasn't there in two thousand and ten and personally do not see a will but i'm it's my understanding there was a will however there's no provision in the settlement agreement or final judgment under which  was committing here's my will and i'm never going to change it again i'm not going to enter new wills he was hoping to live for a very long time after two thousand and ten and he had the right to change his will which is probably why the last will and testament is not to find that in the agreement on a defined terms i see it here it's capital is but it's not a fright in it but how do you define a living persons will by name you can't put a name in a date on it because he can change and has every right to change it and so that's that's the situation that we have here this recording state of the state where the waiver of standing or giving up standing is found  and what it is yes your honor is that two places st it's the set up which the settlement agreement and the final judgment it's the settlement agreement section three paragraph one f the examples on page and seventy five of the record it says f no contest of al jr's last will and testament al three aaron the grandchildren and all of their descendants in errors agree not to contest the last will and testament of al jr or file any additional action lawsuit or legal proceeding challenging the disposition of his property so that that's the settlement agreement it gets both don't contest what we file and don't file anything of your own it's the bookit the word give the upstanding and the word standing comes from the district court's final judgment which has been affirmed by this court and been actually affirmed a think on even collateral attempts of attack the final judgment has the word standing does not appear in that paragraph the word standing does not appear in the paragraph in the final judgment the word standing appears as a heading and then there are several paragraphs below it one of which is the no contest judgment and so that's a final judgment giving up his standing your honor we believe that without three is doing is a clear violation of the settlement agreement and the final judgment if it's not is hard to imagine what these clauses cover at this point we believe judge lindsay was well within his discretion when he entered the injunction plenty of warnings have been given and as as my posing counsel has noted there is an issue of attorney's fees which is still pending before the magistrate judge the a the ward of attorney's fees is technically not before the court however i did want to flag it and do appreciate opposing counsel flagging it because the court ruling on the merits of the contract issue supporting the injunction could potentially impact that other part of the case we are asking though as part of this court's affirmative the injunction for every man and so that we can seek our attorney fees for this appeal as well because this is a clear breach alfre has been obstructing the estate for years i believe we're at two years since al jr passed away if i heard correctly i think it's two years to the day at i would need to look back at the order of the probate court and see what it what it disposed of what it governs and if you're right then that's it's done with that there's no challenge to that it's over with yes and so to the extent that moved now because the jurisdiction of the court is gone i mean i'd have to look for something to judge when he was doing that when above and beyond to find this appeal is is that i know that's a long question but your honor i think you're i think i agree with what you're saying if i understood the question because judge judge lindsey's order on the ability to appeal from the date of the probate court order that's moot regardless of what's in the probate court order and it is brought it's corrected there's additional orders that were entered that day probating the will and allowing the state to move forward that's all d moot what the only part of the injunction order that's not moot or of sorry that i think that's not moved from judge lindsey is the forward looking ors that they're there the argument is that my client has been fixations litigant with that that is kind of tainting some of these proceedings but it goes both ways and i just need to point that out because we say our belief that we point out in our brief certain things that doesn't make it right evaporate the appeal that also made the probate court order essentially unreviewable which makes your appeal to the extent your challenge not moot to the point i have not had a chance to read the jackie case ok but my point we that would be it would if in fact that is true that is accurate that should be a decision made by the texas state is that if the the that part of the pa we have to make got this determination is a matter of our own jurisdiction the other the other point i would make again which i started to take before my time ran out is is it just i just want to sit see you go to jail back homicide rate the bancroft clothing case for fifteen us warming deprived of your benefit of the bargain no contest cause irreparable harm when you're never going to get back all the time and hassle involved it it will contest proceeding this is the chicken in the icon again because if in fact this is not a valid will much like the arbitration clause i mentioned earlier or signature then there is no