four in this order judge graham order that there would be a release of all ability these a b c m a insurance company in this order  ere should be no payment by c n a insurance because c n a was a stranger to the proceedings and this is i want to say that out of the many times that i've seen insurance companies pay money as part of the settlement almost in every settlement i've ever seen an insurance company pays money that for the first time i am seeing the notion that if you put in a salad with agreement that an insurance company will most the largest thing that it did that was different than the offer that was made but also there were there were things about it that were different there were others as to the other family members this was but they were all mutual they were some of the brothers and soon some of the brother was were to release the broker group she was suffering but he wasn't going to release them so there was a song on  everything up in the way of the mutual releases and different things like that that actually matched the bullet points that we have on some of those things and then which on the things that we haven't mentioned at least made language the usual kind of language that we've cleaned up the that's not world was tendered back in exchange for our document that we had originally proposed i mean risk was still things that were being negotiated only  that they're getting released him and so i think it does go back to original law school principles of where you would take a final exam and there'd be one document that would propose something offers after all for in this thing and i think that it's important that you apply for a new contract principles to a settlement negotiation and document as as we have here or there's there they are settlement in order to get a release of the law of the insurance company and i can't really tell you why she wanted that but i think that that was her right to have me put into the settlement agreement as you know our proposal and that there is no requirement that in this document that that money be aid to his law firm if it's not paid to his law firm and i don't think she can very well tell herself that she got money paid to her son i don't think she can very well tell herself also ok now for me to pay my other kids the same amount of money that i got paid to him by his insurance company i don't know the reasons are i don't think that  that is something that's for most of all if you will to put into a settlement document that an insurance company will pay money to somebody especially where the insurance company's going to get released so what were the reasons were that's quite different than saying that an insurance company will pay his law for money for example and say that if the gun toters law firms owed money that leo tops is the side he is the party that paid the money for it to his own law firm rather than it coming from an insurance company  so i do see that as as different now maybe maybe as to her own pocket that does not make a difference if that's what you're saying well if that's what you're saying that in her own pocketbook it does not make a difference whether her son base is omar firm or whether an insurance company pays his own law firm but she wanted in there that the insurance company would pay do believe that you knew only every other settlement that that i've ever seen an insurance company pay some money for getting a release of the insurance company and i just can't see the reason in this case insurance company you paid this law for money thank you i think it you know the the surest entitle to put in there what she did also it wasn't had something i think that makes it a counteroffer as well cases because she filed her motion to reconsider in all five of cases with all five action she said that motion to reconsider with respect to the settlement agreements and all five cases the order was then enter happens all the time when you've got mobile settlements that have courts will consolidate the cases in order to effectuate a global settlement that's what happened here playing the filed a motion to reconsider response from them in this record indicating that they have any acquisitions in the motion so the only reason it's an issue in this other cases is because of plaintiffs resistance and plaintiffs motion to reconsider in trying to bring a resolution to litigation between her children i don't think it's for this court to second ask whether there was a failure to her work or not in asking that consideration of his consideration she asked it's a benefit that she's district's analysis and suggest that this part of it here that the third district standard of manifest way up with respect to whether there was a settlement agreement i think we're all in agreement that as far as the battle points and  of consideration this was this was not something that was antiquated income a settlement agreement this was attempting to modify the settlement not all of the language so i think that his ruling that there was a valid settlement agreement reached but as for what points that have been echoed in in the settlement release form that is settlement agreement i think we're all that ok will let's go with  all that that we were wrong about that that that was something that differed from our offer you know addition to the money that was to be paid by the insurance company of the gantos law firm i would say that we were not in favor of the bridge either of these two workers i don't think that we fail within the marker case where the parties to actions kept doing agreed orders and in everything that had a another option case that could be reopened because the adoption that provides that you have to do that within a year or two here are still within the two new years of two fourteen zero one of the code of civil procedure and so i'm not sure that interests of the insured they also have a connection to the insurance company to deal with the insurance company to get whatever it is that the consideration supposed to be so i think the way i look at this as entice element what happened was a change in lee greenwood that something was to happen in many days rather than in sixty days that was that was that was the change that they were laying down to say that there was now a a mirror image of sentiment but i believe the cleansing had taken place already on the real estate within sixty days so really didn't matter whether it said sixty or ninety and so the case to the ball that the change from sixteen to mamie was in fact not a change because the closing occurred within sixty days anyway and i think that's entirely distinguishable because a lot of the things that were supposed to be signed off on here weren't signed off on instead we got a counteroffer from the me and i think that's a little bit of a granting almost of our emotional here just wasn't granted in its entirety but it does go to show i think that there was a mirror image and it was counteroffer rather than on an acceptance