the trial court abused its discretion in setting a field or in this case over twenty six times the contractual liability set forth in the written agreement between the parties no this isn't just a matter of double or triple or even five or ten times this is twenty six times you know why i believe that is the do not exceed amount in the written agreement between the partners no if we were standing here twenty five hundred dollars just to kind of turn in perspective twenty five hundred dollars only three point eight percent of the sixty five thousand nine hundred twenty two dollars and eighty six cents but the trial for ultimately ordered to alarmed at that point but not to the point where i was about to ruin their personal friendship over this because i was always running sure that it was going to be resolved i'm sure you know this was strictly a defensive move as against opposing fifty split it's still five thousand and ten thousand is substantially greater than the twenty five hundred gallons that you're saying was the maximum of your own liability to the trial co get half of twenty five hundred the record before the trial court in october two thousand and seventeen the fuel board was not entered into december of two thousand and seven nowhere in the polanski brief  trial with the parties in counsel is the same judge who her feet petition that judge saw the involvement acknowledged by by  arguments with regard to the statutory requirement somehow divested the trial court of jurisdiction to hear this case or to hear the few petition convince this venerable body is that somehow there is a there has become a statutory construction issue that is a fallacious argument based on ordinary in claim meaning and i suggest that if the court were to do that conceding the argument for purposes of argument not doing so but for purposes of argument to show the absurdity of the  district language in there in the stature filing with the petition he's asking this court to interpret that language to only mean it has to be attached to the petition it cannot be later submitted and directing the petitioner to refile as justice tour of the city acknowledged or asked in this case there was no such motion filed in this case and to court or the post civil procedure keep heat after his appearance in this divorce case as his own co counsel and he is charged with the responsibility of knowing the laws of the state  suggest just this is the best for the purpose of trying to me my fruitbat and has no bearing on this case whatsoever my final point on this justice is is that my me complete this list of us for for two years two years hundreds of e mails dozens of court appearances as i argued multiple service is my firm reference to their colleagues in this case i think i have it i wanted to show question yes i mean i am troubled by the fact that there was a written agreement that maxed out at twenty five hundred dollars and how do just my position with regard to your question is yes they were presented to the trial court however that that issue is beyond a kirby with this court's consideration because this court has to assume that the judge collins action was appropriate because there's no indication in the record to the contr your petition fees or your petition was my or my petition was filed within thirty days following the lead vote is granted to withdraw ok and now pay for the final disposition to mr keating then his interests and i believe that was a second basis for the court's w abuse case some day why wouldn't you have the same obligation of the trial court if you're going to owe either a ninety six percent deduction of someone's reason or a twenty six fold increase in