manners and a corporation must be a necessary part of a law or cases have alluded to it that we've cited on page twenty one of our brief that intervene didn't come in whatever doesn't change the fact that they are necessary part and robert was adamant about the corporation should not  and we brought up time and time again to the trial judge with respect to judge sanchez he ruled it could be we claim that it's a boy judgement because there was no jurisdiction over to necessary parties and even if there was a valid agreement valid doctor it was against the manifest where the evidence what's the corporations say and why do we rely on judge sanchez said i'm ordering you to voluntarily dissolve the corporation order a someone to do something is not a voluntary now there is a provision in the corporation act twelve point fifty voluntary liquidation of the corporation that was used here of course said it was how can you voluntarily dissolve a corporation with all of those rights and votes two thirds etc in the voluntary dissolution section it are asserting that the proper course was without jurisdiction that after that order of as one argument and then are you making of that a secondary argument that even if  be saying the same thing but in different ways first argument is no jurisdiction of to do what he did a second argument is if he were to do what he did he erred in doing it that's argument robert had to hire him for v a years that was given to him by his mother which is not owned by four degree was worth approximately two point one million that's correct or justice that's correct  corporation worth basically that profit and loss statement it was agreed upon by the parties the worst of the value of the land in four d so that's not an issue did a wife was ordered to refinance the house to pay the husband some money that could have been down there was creative financing robert could have raised enough money a month from the corporation and cheryl was given thousand a month and he has sosa's security and cheryl was at the age of retirement practically in center on corporations how are these first of all roberts did not at trial make a contention about necessary parties that was something that he raised after the fact so with regard to that contention again he's gonna meet the standard of submit they did not have a direct interest their stock was not at issue in this divorce their rights were united issue in this the worse their rights were not restricted by their ruling in this divorce they still have those rights all that happened in this case was the judge directed the parties who had the power because of the number shares that they own to proceed under twelve point one five of the business for aeration and liquidate the corporation and as i discussed  arguments this is something that was rendered necessary by the circumstances that existed at the time that this divorce was completed and mr costello starts off this presentation saying robert didn't want this to happen robert wanted to keep the corporation one keep the farmland that may well be but rather clearly did the last act that made it absolutely no other alternative but to have a liquidation the corporation mr costello just argued well there could have been some other way even under the circumstances for there to be some sort of robert buying her out there was no contention of that a trial there was no evidence of the that ability at trial had there been there would have been in this written situation but the contacts we had a trial was the only their major assets but this foreign corporation neither party had the ability to buy out the corporation there was no ability to to do it and so what had to happen was a liquidation for them to have the money to live on for the rest of ownership to do a voluntary what is called a bond terry liquidation of the corporation and twelve point one five defines what a voluntary liquidation of what is necessary for voluntary liquidation of the corporation this is of the corporation this does not require the is just not correct the statute doesn't require that you be acting voluntarily and as i previously stated a party in a divorce case can be compelled to do things that party doesn't want to do when it is to the shareholders so it's not the robber is voluntarily doing it and yes the court can order someone to do things that court that party doesn't want to do it happens quite often in divorce cases  so whereas normally when you sell land you do that voluntarily the court can order you to do that and so ok i thought for a few seconds i could think of all sorts of other things that the court but normally if you do it you do it voluntarily but the court can't order you to do it so in a divorce case the court has the power to do that the other alternative would have been the court give all my all the stock to cheryl and buy some conditions it said you're each getting half the shares but you're getting this subject to the condition of you've got to liquidate the corporation you've got to exercise your power to liquidate the corporation and i submit that he had the authority under the  suggest that there instead of the court doing it this way the court should have said well i'm going to give you equal shares and you're going to have to just cheryl you're just going to have to pursue it under twelve point five six trying to force them to fire you out was not a sufficient would not have been a sufficient remedy because nobody was conceding for purposes of that case a factor that would be necessary or she could  that this court's task was to get something done that would finalize and try to end with the involvement of these parties now as justice turner and in the other earlier argument that hasn't occurred there are a number of reasons that that has occurred but i don't know that that person there's no record of that and i could give my take on all those reasons but i don't believe that that's pertinent to the appeal because the appeal is whether the traffic where you hear it and what what he determin the other thing i want to point out here again and this might have been touched on some of the words are discussion or questions of mr costello pointed out he argued in this case that the court didn't have the authority to dissolve the perpetration that it had to proceed under twelve point five secs where he is arguing now that the judgement was void because necessary parties were enjoying again that doctrine of representation which i discussed in this brief discussion the other one it's not if you know what that party would have done had that party intervene is already done in this case which it was because robert made the argument that the interveners are seeking to make at this point in time that's already occurring so that under the doctrine of representation you don't boyd the judgment they've already had those arguments have already been made and if this court said oh well they should have been parties send it back for them to argue the same arguments it would just create more delay create more attorney's fees and not accomplish any  appropriate purpose robert does have the a standing in this case to argue whether or not the trial court abuses discretion make that determination and i submit that the trial court clearly in determine that this was the way that this marital estate had to be disposed with regard to the attorney's fees issue again the judge made some detailed tiny's of the reasons that he felt  that robert had caused delay in this case and in my brief i go through a number of things also and i'm not going to belabor them but this was a case that took an extended period of time to try it with numerous things that took place in the litigation at the trial whenever it was raised that the court had no jurisdiction and an attempt would be made to follow it up the court simply said i have a rule you shut up you talk to pursue any further so that's why it wasn't mentioned in the trial there was no mention of and the last point cheryl corley have gone into the corporation lawsuit twelve point five six i'm mis don't see any questions thanks to both of you the case is submitted to court