may please the court as i stated my name is that if the same on behalf of the appellant us upon this case is about whether it were agreements a valid oral agreement was reached and whether the judge's recollection of any of those terms were proper or faulty based on the record in appealing it is evident that the meaning of the mines did not occur on the december th two thousand and fifteen settlement conference and question your position is that there's no each one of them had a totally different idea of what that settlement actually entailed so therefore our position is that there was not a meeting of the minds coming out of that december th i mean this was an order that was provided to the court i don't know who dra everything is going to be split in this percentages after counsel for us the time went back and forth with the judge the judge then changed her position and said ok the revenue from the land will be split in this particular percentage finally again after some more back and forth the judge then finally took the position that this relates to mineral and energy rights so just in and of itself the judge's shifting of what her recollection was is not what the what the parties the initial record shows that the judge when she st came out to the bench her recollection was yes everything the land the acres of land we have over two hundred dollars acres of land that will simply be divided in these fifty seven dollars and a percentage is fifty two and forty percent later on in that same proceeding you see that the judge then says you know what this is actually the revenue that's being generated for the land the actual ownership is not going to be split in this particular percentage rather the revenue that's generated will be split in this position then further down in the proceeding you see that the position is all abandoned it's not the land ownership that's going to be split it's not the revenue from the land that's going to be split rather it's the mineral rights that are coming from this property that are going to be split four in this particular percentage i hope position your honor is that by having this type of a agreement that able to divide the states as you wish in the cons mine the way that the sticks were divided was that the mineral rights will be given to this ark l l c and the ownership will stay with him and that allows him then to take interesting aspect is really the judges we collection rodimus i know we're weird really looking at the key for case here pay for enterprise case and i think this case does is distinguished from that case for a number of reasons st your honor the judge's recollection in this particular case goes against both of the parties settlement proposal and case for each party had submitted their proposals and the judge ended up picking one of them here we have three different proposals and three different ideas of what this settlement actually was secondly your honor in the case for a case the judge had to make a recollection of a money amount there's actually a call in the case for case that says this is a money issue this is not a definition issue here the judge is making a recollection of a definition that none of the parties actually agree on no one really understands what the word world she is actually speaking to so i just a few months later and i case this is almost three years later where the judge is asked to make a recollection in the record itself shows that the judge's recollection was faulty erroneous and absence unsubstantiated operating agreement totally goes against what the judges and michelle recollection was in the l l c agreement only the middle rights are being assigned to the l l c there's no mention of land there's no mention of easements or anything else and fifteen the issue here is that in order for us to have a formal agreement there has to be an offer acceptance and meeting of the minds and here there simply was not a meeting of the minds none of the parties knew what they were actually splitting splitting the land of this building minerals and the material terms have to be definite and certain and quickly actually disagree job to tell us what material material the terms actually are is a sent to the same things in the same sense on all essential terms and that did not take place here as a relates to quinlan if we were to take for example that there was a meeting of minds in a contract that that's not a position but in the alternative if this court found that there was a meeting of the minds and a contract took place or the secondarily i believe that there was a withdraw of better premium and that agreement cha there was a settlement in two thousand and fifteen why is the judge now saying to further settle parties please settle finally at the start of the hearing on august st two thousand and eighteen in the beginning before the judge gets into the hearing the parties read onto the record a change of the terms there's a new agreement there's a new settlement that has taken place on the record so if it's a or it's an all agreement so really that brings up the question was the agreement actually on december th two thousand and fifteen or that was the agreement actually memorialized on august st two thousand and eighteen on the record that we see before us based off of the foregoing the case that we have in front of us k for enterprise i believe that our case is distinguished from that case as it relates to the judge's recollection goes against both settlement proposals because it was a final order of the court that distinguished the rest of the case and because it distinguished the rest the case that's what brings it forth in front of this or that if because of this decision that the judge made there's nothing else now to litigate if that settlement does take place although interestingly enough in the judge's proceedings in the records she does state that this doesn't deal with prospective issues that it only deals with mineral and energy rights and this energy rights word was actually never brought up before the judge kind of throws it out there it's not in any of the settlement proposals it's not in the motion to compel or the response is kind of thrown out there  settlement agreement that has to be in writing that has to be what in writing i don't think there's a settlement agreement has to be in writing you have a case that says that well yeah sure settlement was an agreement relating to revenue it wasn't the greenman relating to title to land it was agreement an agreement that related to revenue coming from the land in two that right because it's relating to the division of revenue of cash of money coming in relating to ease now there were  is money that comes in from the use of an easement to transport minerals or energy related items that as well and yes across this land from somebody else land we're not talking about the extraction of minerals from this land that has nothing to do with this settlement agreement that's completely outside of this agreement this agreement is solely and that's what happened here or there and the judge found it was a global settlement it was going to divide all the revenue issues coming again it didn't matter whose land he easement went across they were trying to simplify and agree case where the trial judge said you have one version of the settlement agreement and you counsel have another version of the settlement agreement i don't have to resolve that i was there i know w personal injury cases usually don't even do that but if this got some something a little more complicated than that they'll scribble on a piece of paper what the deal was or in this case this was a global settlement they resolve all the issues of the revenue that was coming in from the land the judge so found she s report proceedings if so say states in the draft order that was signed and the judge should be firm have stopped her recollection based on her notes if i can take a nd to address the issue of the standard of review and the my point simply is it doesn't matter the judge was they are the judge had her nose and her recollection it was clear i agree that the lawyers and the judge were going back and forth in the report of proceedings and it would be difficult to make heads or tails out of who was arguing what it's like or going back and forth because they were all there and they all understood what had occurred but the bottom line is she came down yet and said that's my recollection it was a global settlement and the division is fo that was something they agreed upon and you weren't there i quit later so i don't know i was sorry thank you very much relates to the statute of frauds i do believe that the case for there's a distinguishment here where k four was in relation to money here we're talking about land as much as council is saying revenue from the land the reality is that  land and if we're saying that easement are also going to be assigned into this arc l r c for splitting of revenue or that's a transfer of land there secondly in the order it does not say that the land is being split in this particular percentage the order specifically says mineral in energy related revenue will be split according to this particular percentage so that is dealing with the ownership of the land and i think  and you do what you want with your land anything to do with easements or anything else that's up to you and that's where the real bargain lies and this term global settlements i think cuts both ways that innocent cons version that's still a global settlement that  rights be split you keep your land and you do what you want with your land it's a global settlement and their position could also be a global settlement that no we're not talking about separating land of mineral rights everything goes into this pot and gets put also these are global settlements from each person's perspective but point the judge does say that this is not perspective perspective doesn't apply prospectively to events in the future so i guess there's an argument as to whether it's global but i do believe that both parties caught it was a global settlement