nature of this so i think it must be rare for a case to get this point where there is controlling supreme court precedence addressing almost identical facts situations i think in most cases either case would not have been filed or would have been resolved trial but that's not the case here we have a trial court opinion that is not only in sr on the supreme court it's diametrically opposed to the rulin i think ski discussion this pertains to this case because in both those cases the losing party argue that the government survey control and the story that supreme court listed no the government survey is are just a means of adjoining forty or eighty year order section and for whatever reason choose to have a survey and i won't say invariably but it's quite often that a survey today would reveal government session we have no quarrel with the supreme court decisions acknowledged that's the law the problem is the defendants never put those cases each there has been no pleading of any type kind nature or description filed by the defendants affirmatively stating that there should be an alternative down this was just litigation by m bush saying there's a you know i have an affidavit and that is not sufficient what one lie would be sufficient to beat your motion for summ when they funded their revokable living trust just a few months before because they used the exact same descriptions and all we did is come into court and say there trespassing on our layers why this title and the address an alternate boundary but those alternate alternate boundary was not supported by any sort we'd know from the defense no counterclaim saying the government surveys this is because we don't do lose the case you grok is their position this is that's their position but it that those those affidavits which we move to strike every one of them and i presume the trial court didn't look at irrelevant because of the strong presumption of the ownership and that the party seeking to establish an alternate boundary has the burden of proof not only to prove it but by clear convincing evidence so our positions were or make the the possibility of an alternate argument even an issue it was necessary for them to plead that there was one and having failed to do so the  court correctly found then that given that there was nothing pleaded and no relevant issue raised different than the government survey that they were first of all i think bound by stopped by deep they were trying to contradict or impeach their own instruments and just as importantly if there is an alternate boundary their burden of proof they have to lead it and they have to prove that's how we defendants in this case it was a phrase in a prayer for relief and their response to our motion you know and i know federal fifty six would allow a court you know that that's not the way we do it in a state court and i know that you don't have to file a counter motion for summary judgment the court just enter it you know that you know it's seems to me that the most elementary due process of law is that if you have a claim plead allow the other side the opportunity to disprove that finn against it and not just come into court with an affidavit that said this ex cathedra establishes the truth about something of which is it isn't even relevant under the plea this record they lost who is the property in question