january december i was a discovered the divorce papers five years weren't those divorce papers proving to be fraudulent your honor that's the discovery three charges including judge lynch who was a trial court in this case denying the continuance though the entire case the trial court is manifestly important in this case and the effect to hit on this appeal there's not a whisper of anything with respect to the liability of the defendants in this case as to the underlying case the whole case all of these issues out i mean how could we do that because the verdict and judgment were entered before any of these perceiving stirred and parents discovery which is obviously erroneous under recognize when he made his finding and when he denied the motion didn't he also recognize in his findings that it may become incumbent upon the trial judge to have a hearing to determine how distributions would made based on these allegations yes good so wasn't that kind of a flack that was put up before the trial date that we might have to revisit this issue later  no i really don't believe that under the circumstances the the trial court would take the position that  the continuance of the trial and set up for trial before judge lynch it went before a judge lynch and judge lynch after hearing from all   actually the husband of the seed and then then there were many years in the trial because the the the first of all the the the decision of the of the year try rebecca as to whether or not this was a suicide would be empty would be affected by that by that question as to whether nat this was a marriage that it quite bad and they were apart for a couple of years and maybe the jury would have been more open to the question of whether it was a suicide if the jury was was told that the that the intervene it was the husband so i don't know if you can say that there's no allegation of a year in the trial they could have appeal in that regard and i think there is an argument on appeal that they have to stick to this case would have to be tried over because if the intervenor was shown to be the husband it would be a different apparent that when he rejected bed after he had mr key to sign a retainer agreement and then judicial notice of the i believe the courts taking the court to related back well you know that would be a very good question and it was taken up we moved to intervene pla the very same fact is to be considered later on how long has it been since a case of started when did he intervene or find out about the case when did they get involved oh yes we're up when that motion was considered motion didn't have to be granted the judge could have denied it and still gone on and had all of the same sort of help but the waiver if you're talking about that the defendant made here is just a waiver that the court has to consider like new things is not enough to find fraud is it enough to raise a suspicion sure but not to find it not without further proceedings and definitely not on the evidence that was submitted so he didn't even give lip service to clear convincing evidence that is an abuse of discretion because it is unreasonable and he didn't apply the proper dishes to it which is why his decision should be overturned  a motion to amend the complaint and to allow it to relate back based upon the one case that has anything to do with the situation if any would a sight of us so what is it that you want us to  is welcome to do so we say that it makes no sense for a cook county jury here face a life military that's already been cited it be a simple matter to tell them liability is not an issue in this case your so show that he was illiterate but his own testimony also showed that he is a cab driver who was savvy enough to know within a short time after the accident occurred that they ought to pursue a lawsuit that he looked into it that he spoke with bengali about filing a lawsuit that he knew the indiana action had been dropped and that an illinois action had been filed that he was concerned that he was being that he wasn't being informed about the suit there and testifies that there was a deal that there be a thirty five percent kickback but not to both well he doesn't well i think that clear and convincing evidence concept is a bit of a red herring because we have to keep in mind the context in which all of this arose which was this is in  january two thousand and thirteen where the judge had ruled that in december of two thousand and twelve that key that was the husband now in january two thousand and thirteen we're trying to figure out what should happen as a result of that ruling and this all comes out in the context of the defendant's moving to vacate the judgment and kita asking for leave well he got asked to vacate and for a new trial and damages and implicitly asking for leave to amend the complaints that he be named as a beneficiary in this event strader and it's in that context the defendant's responded and said he doesn't met doesn't satisfy the conditions for allowing an amendment for various reasons but one of which is if you look at section two thousand six one six three which is the section he was trying to use you have to show three things that an amendment would further the ends of justice that you have to look at the effect it would have on the nature of the proof to defend the claim and the surprise or the prejudice by the amendment and so if you see you see that's a separate issue the amendment speculation not evidence relating back that's another question ralph i would disagree that it was speculation because there is evidence about here attending the trial about  up because he knows stuff and there's circumstantial evidence at the frog there may not be direct testimony by anyone that key that was part of it but there was ample all circumstantial evidence a matter of fact in this suit that the jury instructions if you look at records are you eight c seven hundred seventy eight the jury was instructed that circumstantial evidence should be given the same say circumstantial evidence is all clear and convincing evidence to prove from i haven't looked for such a case you could look you won't find but but and even if you find that he wasn't part of a fraud per se which we believe he was because even if you don't want to go that far judge lynch also said that that he mr hurd said this morning that there were divorce papers found on how was fighting at the time of the accident that's incorrect it latest the it was the further the marriage certificate and there's been a big point made about that this was in defendant's possession all that time but i would ask the court to take a look at on the record that record by page c ten twenty seven and you can get an idea of the piece of paper the papers that the defendants were looking at which was a chartered document in a foreign language which the investigator had label of birth certificate and most importantly the defendants had no reason to look beyond that and to question it because within months of the complaint being filed the defendants acting with due diligence propounded discovery to the plaintiff and asked two questions whether how old was married at the time of the accident and whether she had ever been married and the plaintiff swore in the interest in iraq trees that she was not married and she had never been married but idea probate court filing can be justified because the marriage was never legitimate that's just disingenuous because when the plaintiff's counsel was it dies in october two thousand and eleven that the i'm a little bit troubled by the the use of depositions that were taken post judgment as evidence because we have very clear demarcation and our and our state in fact there was argument made by the point during some of these depositions that they wanted discovery depositions first of all cell by their own position they acknowledge and agree that these were all evidence depositions and this is post trial discovery it is a bit unusual situation and so he tried his best during these post trial proceedings to come up with a great at handling at which was a question which was cost effective no reason but based on and i believe that this morning it was just that he had no facts to support it but it was just the contrary the judge didn't have facts to support it and testimony to support at not the least of which was the point he cites to professor wayne and where she discussed that there is a huge problem in mali about people not knowing if they're injuring into legitimate marriages so this issue of there being broad molly this is no evidence of any you want to respond to this concept that that interview never brings up that there was some sort of waiver as to the issue of timeliness i think we're mixing apples and oranges there are two different issues there was an issue about whether key to should be allowed to intervene that was raised and briefed in august of two thousand and twelve and that that august decision the issue of intervention didn't come up again until the end of the december thirteenth two thousand and twelve heirship hearing and at that time the judge had already decided that quito was the right but eric and if you look interview to make the arguments he's going to make but we don't agree with the merits of his argument so there was no waiver of the issue of amendments now as to that timeliness issue that in itself can be of course there's two different standards for whether you intervene in a whole different set of issues as to whether you should be allowed to amend but even as the timeliness issue which does impact both of them the issue for timing or intervention has to do with the time between the lawsuit you filed and the time you intervene timeliness in terms of the amendment deals with the time of the accident and when you're seeking to amend so we're talking about two different periods of time but even more importantly we're by their expert to sukkot that this divorce decree was a fraud it was only then that key to step forward and that was the issue the court was considering in terms of the amendment which is a different thing than the timing standard that we have to you judge lunches actions who saw all these witnesses testify at trial and sat in on all the witnesses at the instep positions after the trial and we ask did he gives conscientious judgment and was his decision outside the bounds of reason we have to say that he did not abuse discretion in a while in the post trial discovering and making the rulings that he made and if we look at the standard for his findings as to airship was it against the manifest weight of the evidence or certainly his findings were not unreasonable or arbitrary they were based on the evidence and they were all considered and so the perfect should not you in with the family and just about the galley and everything that happened having been the file judge in this case one can understand he would be appreciably perturbed by the for his wife's funeral spent time for that and yes since his wife was killed he did want to get justice and compensation for that but he thought wrongly that his interests were being taken care of by people that he thought he could trust that turned out to be in error one of those people at least for a few