for summary judgment filed by the defendant predicated on two written documents which i believe on their face established as a matter of law i'm not going to touch on the question of facts which relate to because of baking that document on its face that's the first document in a series of documents that were entered into on a for actual borrower if you will was borrowing money purchase money to purchase from tractors didn't occur for two and a half months later now the entire agreement between the borrower and lender relating to this law am supersedes all previous agreements except as to agreements between the in essence then other than agreements between a designated are over and the lender or any other arrangements related to these loans previous agreements or superse now the only borrower designated on this agreement or read on any of these eight purchase loan agreements was the actual  ready mix to the care and general lack of three guarantee any of the other parties referenced there is nothing the only borrow and therefore the only both of these form agreements reference being governed by a lot and on the issue of whether parent she exists in the first instance whether guarantee what doesn't a continuing guarantee mean loans made after this point otherwise why is this continuing well and i think this is the  giving rise to an obligation that bat's guarantee now the word and significance of a continuing guarantee is that a continuing guarantee guaranteed that and they don't pay what am i missing here i can buy some capital responsible well either this agreement well again under the national because there wasn't there wasn't what i mean by virtue of signing a document to guarantee at that point in time with no underlying  express and that's consistent by the way with the national lease holding specifically provided that unless any other prior agreement to that party on the hook for any money i loaned you but i'm now providing this this lot agreement for what hundreds of thousands of dollars i'm excusing capital  otherwise would be their obligation that's your position isn't it yes why would they do that well because we never got on the simple reason why they do that and factual issue was whether or not they guaranteed agreement was actually executed by capital ready well then why did you handed back and the document says this document which governs the loan i'm about to secure this document says that it supersedes everything  so that's what the parties agreed to that's how the trial court should have interpreted the socket i can only say your honor that that's exactly what it's ok it's acting in words you're not saying because you're gentle or it was an egregious oversight or that was the only way they would borrow the money to buy the truck was created by the earlier dream the interlocking guarantee that was the advantage that they wanted to take advantage of or the advantage they wanted to be the beneficiary but because of this document which they  anything about that would be superceded well because this document supersedes anything we've ever said in the past it unless it involves exactly us the document like that supersede other release that exist out there in business school because it is it purported to be a guarantee so there had to be something that was guaranteed and the only thing  exist right because they guarantee no it did not obligate navistar to do anything for her or anyone else then obligate navistar anybody the issue was if we do it if we do it you'll be on the hook yeah i mean that was there the original idea something the language was put into these documents for reason and none of these documents superseded the continuing guarantee you have ok this case presents several legal issues  document that was a continuing guarantee of all obligations of curry ice and coal to never start financial the answer is unquestionably yes third although it wasn't addressed yet the  capital avoid liability under a guarantee already to go she will instrument by claiming that it didn't read received or were qwest the entire document such as what's alleged the answer that is absolutely not that the facts are simple but i do want to emphasize three or four just or a structure for purposes of today first in march of two thousand and five curry ice and coal production i was far financial concerning a series of loans for the purchase of my tractor trailers agreed to loan money to curry over a series of transactions on the condition that curry's one of the related corporations execute continuing guarantees of all of those obligations thereafter over the next eighteen months  navistar in financial navistar financial loaned over four point five million dollars to curry ice and cold under the terms of a commercial loan agreements in reliance on the continuing here and t s executed by all of these related guarantee executed by capital with those facts in mind i turn to the law first continuing guarantees are in or civil in illinois and by their very definition guarantee future loans hence the term continuing capitals primary argument is that there couldn't have been a meeting of the minds concerning its guarantee because the loans had not yet been entered into but again that ignores the very purpose and certainly the very for all future obligations of the principal all before whereby the terms of the written guarantee it appears that the parties work to a future course of dealing or a succession of credits that is generally considered to guarantee continuing in that case cites to the restatement third of surety ship which similarly says quote a person can agree to become the secondary of the gore or subsequent obligations of another person that such an agreement is usually called a continuing guarantee absolutely not what i owe you heard the argument such as it was that most of the rebel base what's or is absolutely well first the continuing guaranteed by its terms guarantees all future obligations of curry ice and told start financial so when each of those eight separate loans were subsequently entered into buying between curry ice and coal the navistar financial capital ready mix head here emptied all of those successive loans this supersede the language on which is grasping is a very simple integration clause contained in virtually every contract i'm sure this board has ever seen the language is that this agreement contains the entire grima between borrow relating to this loan for the purchase of the goods so integration clause between current and navistar related to this loan for the purchase of these goods understand each of these eight loans was for the it was a purchase and security agreement a loan related to the purchase of certain identified so my tractor trailers some of these contracts were for to some of them were twenty five and so each of these loans navistar financial loaned money to curry for the purchase of the goods identified in that contract so the supersede language contained in these agreements is that the loan being signed by currie and navistar superseded the oral negotiations related to this loan for these for the purchase of these goods these are defined terms of the in the agreements the there is no reference whatsoever in these long loans between curry a contract term releasing capital viability please keep in mind also that the continuing guarantee under its terms could only be terminated by guarantor giving ten days written notice of their of their star financial  oral discussions for the loans in the purchase of these goods being integrated into each written loan supersedes the prior volumes or the guarantee of capital ready there's just no language in the agreements which answer is twofold number one they wouldn't and number two they didn't and so that that's why we have contracts that we can look at the language and we can look at the terms and we know exactly what was there and that's where we are turning to the first the very first sentence of the continuing guaranteed begins this is in for a walking continuing unconditional guarantee it's defined term as a guarantee the language of the continuing guarantee clearly a buys to future obligations between is going further capital guaranteed to quote the proper payment of all monetary obligations of any sort which any of the guarantors including curry is now or may hear after become liable to stock there's no doubt that the language of this continuing guarantee obligates capital ready mix for the future of loans that korean backside of a star financial and do your honors absolutely highlighted the key distinction between the williams nation case it wasn't a continuing guarantee in fact the williams nation lease case wasn't even a guarantee and so that the language there is that it was an initial application for alone distinguishes these cases that the williams court expressly stated and again i quote we find the initial application for credit was not a guarantee agreement or subsequently executed lease agreements subsequent that's th exactly what you addressed and that's exactly what this is the distinguishing factor is between these here kapil sign a continuing guarantee of all subsequent future obligations of her there then we're subsequent future obligations of current capital remains liable for those obligations the the other argument raised in the briefing is whether or not capital can escape of or avoid liability by claiming it simply didn't read the continu or cannot void a document unless there was some active deception by the other party again nothing is alleged the trial court absolutely noted that in its opinion and again quoting damages there were due to arguments related to prove the first is that the damages calculation that was requested in the motion for summary judgment in the affidavit of navistar financial was it initially inadvertently omitted from the affidavit that was immediately corrected by have a star financial through subsequent pleadings it was an inadvertent admission which was corrected just disallowed by supreme court for one one that the second argument second arguing raised that motion to strike was that the affidavit was from rise of legal conclusions and once again that argument which is we've just addressed is that capital signed the agreement but it didn't legal enter into it because of the superseding language or because it didn't read the agreement or whatever construct arguments that again that's a legal argument that the trial court correctly address below the facts in the evidence were largely uncontested the evidence was before the trial court the question was simply whether or not there is any legal so to allow capital reading next to avoid liability under this cap and continue here  the trial court correctly ruled that it was not lastly i will turn to the consolidated portion of the appeal and that being the attorneys fees provision so after summary judgment was preempted and after a motion for  reconsideration was filed after a motion for reconsideration was did not the navistar financial then filed a petition for feed costs to be added to the judgment this was filed after the appeal but the financials petition for fees did not affect the issues on appeal that related to the summary judgment it did not contest the trial courts were in any way it did not it was not directed against the judgment forcing this judgement in the trial court right now it's in force mode of the damages that it sustain includes not only the contract balance but the fees and costs as provided in the contract and so the trial court was not by a vested of jurisdiction hear the petition for fees and costs that was added to the judgment it was simply not the this issue was decided by two of the cases that we decided that we sided with and our brie and this precise issue was decided and i quote although it may be filed after injury of judgment a claim for attorney's fees is not the post trial motion within section twelve to twelve so the the fees were properly filed because a petition for fees and possible obviously include whatever was for the time the argument is that if they race to the courthouse to file a notice of appeal then the trial court loses all jurisdiction over the case to enter a ward of fees or cos that's not the law that makes no sense and it's not the law for that reason that should also be a firm thank you counsel thank you for in the trial court elected not to order them not to include them in the judgment in a judgment order that it said this is a final go i don't believe it does your honor because that's not the situation that we hear these fees were requested in the motion and as for the race to the courthouse argument as soon as the judge  d not to or those he is the plaintiff was free to go in and ask for a reconsideration or point out to the judge you didn't the warrant the fees i asked i don't like it not to do so at any time including for twenty two days after the the motion to reconsider the other point in time i have left is the court reference to never c r b stupid as those were my or not yours well i don't see it being stupid in the sense that done but would be absurd argument that's being made is that well this was intended just to deal with never start throwing this loan agreement essentially an abrogation of a half million dollar obligation by capital to get  to see if we're the reason we keep asking is if we have multiple ways to view this one good guidance would be what makes sense and what would be have served seems to me  but again we have no evidence to any well we have the evidence of the documents council we we see the continuing autograph that's evidence that apparently somebody thought we'd better get capital on the other people on the hook isn't it well what is haven't said that they held themselves out to the bar and this agreement will supersede everything else but this agreement between us is slander and you as  he could have added or referenced any and essentially this argument is that spike the fact it was on their form and their representation that all other remains were supercede somehow in electing to execute the documents currie should have known that they didn't mean that because that would be stupid but what's in the courier who got the money they signed the agreement that's capital  let off the hook the difference is the very thing we're here right they had a right to protect their other and