is the court i'm just getting in the attorney for you know or so i'm a soft partition case i think the opportunity for me to be heard today i just briefly want to go back to the facts quickly because i think it's he's partition cases and the court knows the wall that was not a very articulate way of saying i should've said armstead and any of that josh lived out there he says in a camper with no no running water no sewer no electricity during the pendency this litigation and i think that has some effect on the judge's opinion the reason letter which we have a problem and early on the litigation heard meyer who's an appraiser was appointed to be the commission's case and mr meyer  i think it's february in february a few thousand nine days report to reflect the current ownership interest in the property and as you know we're here today because we have a lot of objections to that of or to that report how it was done provided they are diametrically opposed to each other as far as who would get what i mean one option which is the hundred and forty three seventy options that seventy acres is classy farmhand all till and the one hundred forty three is a mix of everything including the old farmstead the other option which is the hundred thirty five i think i use it on pretty five hundred thirty four and the reason is it's a fractional interest it's like twenty five point something in one thirty four point something so it may be in the record a little bit sometimes saying one forty five sometimes  josh wants to be there too and i think that's an important point you're in and when i look at how it was divided and what are my or state of mind was i think it's the one thing that's i think important to this court is his letter to the judge brief i don't think that's wrong and i don't think you have to intentionally try to produce one part of the i think it just has to have the result of one party getting something that is different than the other party got not been different probably not the right word one party getting something that is manifestly different than what the other party got in addition myers in that in that record on the record in that letter on on the twenty first of june states it's my understanding my duty is to provide the work  alice's of the possibility of the fighting the property as equitable as possible when you look at this or worse he does it in the trial he prepares another court which is a twenty one forty split that the judge didn't use i think that's in the record it appears based on these three different options that his opinion it and i think it supported by this letter his opinion is i have to divide this process i don't have i can i'm not going to solve i have to find a way to divide this property and it looks the there is strong evidence of that is the fact that provides these different options which are diametrically opposed to each other i mean they are there's no way to split the baby here i mean it's that's what he's done it really appears he gave no thought to trying to divide the property and provide a good definition about what is manifest or sneeze but i do think there's a little bit of instruction in some of the cases in fact even citing some of the cases that that  the other it's prejudicing the other parking places you can't go by farmstead again you do it and so the fact is that when you give that one party you prejudice the other and i think that is inherently what happened here and i don't think it was surveys and then he submitted detail report to the corps with these these alternatives and the commissioner  right so that was one of his reasons the other reason was that my client had also not only had the camper here he was over the road truck practice and he wasn't there all the time when he was you know in so and i think with the peace law in these types of cases are that you know the commissioner should have a great deal of discretion in their report unless it's for doing it i think it's clear there that the commissioner had a general understanding of what he needed to do under his duties as the commission and i think that's all we can ask of any commissioner in the  and then really it's the jeffs that takes over from that point and the judge has really superintending powers over a measure to direct the partition process and make the decision not committed any reversible errors and or therefore we suspect respectfully request you i'm going to say something that i should have said at the very beginning which is that there is a third member on this panel i'm just as holder to be fair to supporting in the discussion he will be able to listen to the argument that