he did wrong well that's certainly an issue that could have been raised the trial court but i don't believe that that would relieve the commissioner of his responsibility under the order which we would contend that the commissioner didn't follow his why it is definitely true that they went through a number of attorneys and it is definitely true that they were not always happy with the representation they are receiving but i don't know that that's a reflection necessarily that they couldn't get along probably and they would have been in the seventies and eighties they had the family it was actually part of a life a state which belonged to grace foster but i believe they shared farming communities  joint way in the past now i don't recall how long ago that was but there is testimony before the trial court that they did share farming responsibilities in the past but it wasn't recent past you're saying yes that's my recollection of the plaintiffs a pat tolerance may be more prejudicial to themselves than to the defendant happily said that they were willing to take the lesser farm when the commissioner's decision was against the manifest this in the sense that in the at trial he pacified it it was his belief that the parties all wanted a court well that was never ever what any of the parties wanted and that is clear from the judge's letter rolling when he indicates that the plaintiff a problem for willing to pay know well i don't know that you could have divided up the property and i don't think the commissioner considered the fact that was there any way to divide the property or you could divide it up where the parties could not have to rely on each other to go i pod with what the commissioner dead was that he went into the trial with the idea that the parties were to take a the later stages of the transcript that they were willing to take a lesser half that they didn't agree with what the commissioners ruling was because they were on the take even the four pieces of the farm if the court was willing to give them  if real estate is a unique asset it has a settlement up eye to it that they would rather have a flood piece of farmland and have money and that was their desire to keep the far ownership of it because it had been in the family for such a long period of time the prejudice to them was that yes well they may be getting i hope the pain which supposedly will equalize the transaction and their view of the money doesn't actually equalize the transaction because they would rather have farmland even if it meant they got a lesser piece of that farm would our position is simply vests i mean that the decision of the trial judge based on what the commissioner provided to him was manifestly prejudicial to my client's on the grounds that willing to take a lesser piece of the farm ground how that would have been manifestly prejudicial to the defendant apple leaves them so we would ask that on remain at a new submission or be appointed so that he can take that they consideration desires of  parties not as this commissioner did which he took and he took the position the parties all wanted a quarter which was never what the parties had ever desired in the first place and then he resigned from pap which is not with the parties ever asked one seeking a sale or division of the property he was clear that the commissioner can be appointed in this case it was appointed by the agreement of the parties at the time they were represented by counsel mr  certainly that the parties were incapable of cooperation but it was also because of a number of other factors the topography the drainage problems soil erosion the various features on the property including borrow it on one of the properties kind of for lack of a better term a junkyard on another property the court after hearing the testimony and all of the reviewing a report of the commissioner determined that it could not be divided equitably because these various reasons it was also clear at the trial that neither party one of the property so and so the court i think did what was applicable and was fair and follow the statute and fall of the relevant case law and craft a decision based on common sense was which was we're going to divide this between the two farmers and we're going to require the parties getting the better half the pay old so it something before the trial court not that it as you say disappear as lumps and do that thing just expect everybody to come to their defense and and defend them and before the trial court but our contention would be would be that the commissioner also has some responsibilities and the commissioner has responsibilities under the order which appointed him the commissioner have responsibilities under the statue and that responsibility was to ascertain the interests of the parties head was determined that all the parties want it was a quarter of each property and that's never what the parties have ever wanted so that he reasoned from that point or he wanted to go with them or we think he should have said listen if you