the circuit court of cook county on the basis they at the equitable relief he awarded was an improper collateral attack on the judgment and they committed reversible error the just committed revers e error when it awarded equitable relief to the defendant chris hill land development your honor system fails with a wetlands escrow agreement that was entered into between the parties in two thousand and eight it was it coincided with a vacant land purchase agreement between the parties my client works on safety is now my corporation that  isn't located in crest hill and in the process of them building a facility operate out they purchase a property the property included it was about ten point seven five acres and part of that was the vacant land purchase agreement was entered into a wetland escrow agreement was entered into between the parties which provided or required that the seller crest hill mitigate the property which basically not make it useful for work something would happen to the fifty thousand dollars that was supposed to be put up to the remediation it was put in in escrow and all you know that they never got to that point so they were way behind and they never got to ultimately we were able to attach that property or the know those monies and that was turned over pursuant to the citation proceeding after the judgment was are entered so that money was never yost what was it was in  r seventy thousand dollars and it was fifty at the time but as the as the requirements grew aware as they knew how much was going to be required for mitigation they were required to put more money in and that was never done the mitigation processes is a creswell never really started it and that's why when the time period arose for it to be completed my clients exerciser option which provided a right to sell back the property to a crest hill cresswell refused to buy back t entered and you know we just sue for the contract price which is a two hundred twenty four thousand the arbitrator obviously treated this as a specific performance claim because what he did was he said i'm going to enter this  of two hundred twenty four thousand plus trees she has cost of those things but and you are required to go through with the sale if you do not do what the word stands now he didn't say how long it took but because they had the original option of thirty on the same day judgment was entered for the full amount of the award and it was later amended to take into account costs so as of april fourteenth two thousand and eleven we had a judgment for two hundred fifty eight thousand five hundred  your sorry i just wanted to get to the substance of the orders originally entered by the circuit court there's want to march april and may into any of those orders march and april may contemplate a selection or new election no my work so to let me just finish i'm sorry i said to either retain the money damages or retain the real property absolutely not at that point time we had a judgment for a full amount of the of of the money and that point time as unfairness or they had it was a double recovery or anything like that what about the may two thousand and eleven order in which the circuit court refers to a transaction that the parties contemplate closing  jim correct they they came in on emergency motion my client to settle and they were at that point i'm still willing to do the deal if we got fully compensated so we entered in agreed order and stewart palmer entered the order saying yes ok you got told you do the deal you're supposed to correct it will not happen so the next day we executed on the citation against first and make america throughout this whole process there never was an objection to the arbitration awarding of beyond the scope there was no objection to the unreasonable so we go on for twenty two months trying to collect on this judgement we got no big fight with first national bank of joy yeah over some money we've expanded eighty thousand dollars trying to cut down on the form on the judgment and then in march of two thousand and thirteen twenty two months as i mentioned after the award was entered they come in and seek equitable really claiming it's unfair that we have title the property and that we can collect on the judgment and i know he didn't file direct appeal  which really doesn't provide any relief from a judgment it just is whether or not there's the judgment to satisfy him that any of that or is entitle to a release they they didn't suggest that they came in and said well it's just unfair they have these two as really wasn't a mechanism but they came in or under that guys because obviously having the appeal time lapse and this passage of time they could come in and ask for a vacation of a judgment in those words but essentially what the the court did essentially have what they asked for because the average juror said you can't have both if if press hill doesn't and now they're saying i'm going to court in the judge's agreeing you can't have both doesn't it doesn't seem fair to me and that's our problem we don't think the court at this point and you know specific performance if you are the buyer you want to buy property obviously the court has remedies to force the sale i mean you can put a cloud in the title you could you could you could issue a judicial a deed in this case with the seller and we're going to force  a sale the guy or a trader in the court really doesn't have any other mechanism to say that either you do the deal or the judge can stands i mean this is this was a relief that the arbitrator came up with and they didn't come through with it and it was clear from the day the only word was entered that if they don't do the deal the judge is going to stay and it's our property it was a new member at question at that point time so twenty two months later after the judgments been  attack it the court is required to give deference to the arbitration award even if they think it's wrong even if they think it's based on a misinterpretation of factual or even if they feel that it is unfair intent of the wetland escrow agreement the important thing about that argument is number one that the court did not consider the fact that when they were trying to put parties back to the place where they wanted to be quo and in those type of arguments they did not consider the fact that we did occur eighty thousand dollars more basically reducing our judgment if if we don't get that court determined that these were based does and judge allen determine on his own that the escrow agreement did not provide for fees which is contrary arbitration word and like a surlier regardless of whether he disagreed with it he he was bound is on page six paragraph nine g disagreed but that he still bound by the arbitration award and you know the and the important thing is that he just disregarded what the arbitrator said and decided that no attorney's fees because they were the defendant was relying on equity that we that equity serve would require that fees be awarded now there's no specific authority for that act equity can form ahmadis regardless of whether they have legal precedent and in this case he ignored the fact that that he was going to put the parties back and give them an opportunity by his property ignore the fact that  intervening twenty two months we had incurred twenty or eighty thousand dollars of additional fees so if we got paid in full we still had that that basically cut into our award and we made the argument that if he was going to do equity which we never agreed was appropriate but if he was going to he should have taken in consideration the fees that were awarded because he could you know to get equity you must do equity and we we never showed up you know show up in court they didn't come in to take a stand on the first national fight that lasted for six months it incurred a big big amount of that and the only time they did show up  a after judgment lien showed up on properties that they sold and title companies came to them and said you can be responsible for these judgments that's when they come into court twenty two months later say well we need relief from this judgment under the said well maybe there was some unjust enrichment we got determine what the value of property was always reluctantly said ok judge you'll have a hearing because there was a lot of factors including the failure mitigate that go against the value of the property and then if they file a counter claim that was dismissed and he and he didn't he didn't do what he was supposed to do and in that sense the judgment was entered there was no appeal and now that the judge thinks it's for some reason equity this appeal to summarize is one where a windfall is desperately being tried to held on to be held on to and that windfall arises from exactly what the arbitration award was great liberty has been taken by appellants council regarding what is in the arbitration award as well as the yes for agreement so a fifteen in the appendix there is a clause that clause is operative the award of two hundred twenty four thousand dollars excuse me two hundred twenty four thousand and twenty nine dollars and eight cents in favor of claimant stands the arbitration award only awarded money the arbitration award is silent regarding the disposition of the property disposition of assets or property why should we construe that to mean that the award was intended to change the status quo the status quo at the time the award was centered was that work somehow the property the brief that's two hundred only call third one twenty one decided in one nine hundred ninety the second district in that case made up survey showing that the case law regarding twelve one eighty three seven thirty that's what's helpful or instructive for this court to affirm judge allen's order and that is the fact that the statute really looks set what has really been paid and i stress that in the brief no it was not all the judgment did was confirm the a work all the awards did was awarded works on safety money including equity you have to look back at the escrow agreement to ascertain who should have title and that title belonged to my client based on the election that work so made which was to return the property in exchange for money so you're telling this who are that you could go lateral heller where equity was done relying upon kyler that permits the court to look at what has really been paid the party set the value of the property have two hundred twenty four thousand and twenty nine dollars and nine cents that hung onto the property then the question becomes have the judgment already been satisfied fully or partially based upon the property that the value of the property and the dollar amount it's worth in addition to taking take over funds of one hundred seventy if there was that deadline was lost and that was my plus guess of counsel is there anything that privilege you directly attacking the undermine the good judgment which was the confirmation of the arabic original yes or no i don't believe so the the order that you feel is unfair correct you know or it's not it confirmed the arbitration award the unfairness and judge allen's doing of equity was to look back in he looked at that order and everything else was the order that was being considered in the supplemental prosy the order for the or very much allan looked at everything and that's part of the hearing that was held in august of two thousand and fourteen and his findings were expressed in there which is looking back at the escrow agreement and seeing the return and how the return is supposed to be done there was a unilateral obligation by works on safety when making the return to deed back the property i mean as a matter of procedure let me ask you first did you make a demand on work zone for a release of the of of the application was there a demand made i'm sorry a demand twelve ashlynn eight three b requires that if the judgment indicating satisfaction of the judgment was that time before you filed your motion to dismiss under full fast twenty three b i personally did not however i was successor counsel prior counsel the stewart crossed off law firm headed not aware that there was a demand or a request made what i know and this is what i was about to say is that there was in the counterclaim or in the proceeding before judge palmer in motion an issue about the fact that work some still had not deeded the property over and that would be whether you call it formal or informal including it in a motion for relief sought by it from judge palmer which was alternately denied i can say based on what i know the record that could serve as a request but was it formal i don't know that i do it no one in this discussion we haven't heard anything so but that's a legal analysis we're looking at equity again following heller not following but using heller as instructive in terms of what you can do in twelve desh one eighty three judge heikal in heller said at this  isn't titled the equitable relief regarding the land which has been withheld the remedy was different but it it's instructive for the court from one thousand nine hundred eighty three opinion from the third district to say one eighty three allows for looking at wha really been paid and if something has been withheld is a matter of property whether it's real property like it was in hell or something else there should be a credit or something done to be sure that equity is done and that's that was our only point i have offered to tender in this is the illogic of this appeal i offered to tender one hundred nine thousand dollars in change to work sound safety to end this proceeding yet we have an appeal again they want to with we want to hang on to what is a windfall using the silence of the arbitration award and the silence of judgment to say we hung on to it there was no change in disposition therefore we're entitled to it which is something that was never worded in arbitration never granted in judgment doing equity requires a look back and we are at the escrow agreement return of property s mind that was posted voluntarily but right you are correct and that's why a call it instructive or helpful the court it is judge allen observed this is not swear on all fours but he found it instructive that is that equity can be done in a twelve one eighty three b proceeding and two if you look at kyle or the first opinion to really define what this section does it's about what has really been paid there's not a modification or he ordered what he did to prevent the windfall he found that that would be equitable action is warranted that all works on safe he was entitled to ism is a money judgment he set amount at one o nine plus running interest through october the tenth of two thousand and fourteen we offer to tender and yet here we have the subpoena this is an attempt to hang on tightly to a windfall to the detriment of my client that was undone in the chancery division it was undone for proper reason and we would ask the court to affirm what judge allen has done to make sure this windfall doesn't become a reality  absolutely i said it on record it's found in the record on appeal that the issue for my client was being in the worst recessionary period in history not selling property vis streams edge options to purchase that go on and on and on i believe there were four different versions of options to purchase ultimately came to fruition forty acres were sold the proceeds of that went into first american title a citation to collect the judgment was served on first american title the mortgage for my clients property was sold to division gaylord they filed an adverse claim in front of judge allen they succeeded so with all that said the mortgage was sold there was an adverse proceeding against the bank one once we finally asked for the accounting and discovered what the right amount was which i've outlined in in the brief exactly how the amount owed misstated based upon the addition of post judgment fees and costs which they weren't entitled to so finally when we get down to the right amount taking proceeds from the natural sale of land i was able to say the judge will tender it we will do it now they have said we don't want the property we want money from me we're ready to give you money and we've paid for the time spent by post judgment interest that we have to satisfy that is mentions why they couldn't go through with the sale earlier obviously that's not part of the record also not part of the record as of the could go through the sale because the members are suing each other in both cook county and will county when one of the complaints was that one member wasn't paying bills as a team do it this this company was in a spiral downward the fact that the members could get along into business doesn't mean that our company should be dragged down with them ob there was no demand county judge in with respect to the instrument there was nothing for twenty two months suggesting that there was some type of windfall we hear windfall we don't know about windfall we got wet lands that you can't do anything with they come in and claim that there's a windfall there was never any determination of a windfall and judge ellen backed off of that idea and just said it's just not fair you get the money they get the property and in the problem i always had with this in a supplement proceeding was that they were trying to claim that our property that we owe own for thirty years somehow is a d to them for the judgment that's our property and there's nothing in in any of the decisions that were entered here that would suggest that they're entitled to a credit for that it's very clear the arbitrator wrong to force him to do the sale and the penalty was if you don't do the sale you're going to get the judgment is going to stand and that's what happened they had an opportunity after we made our election to do the sale they had an opportunity after the arbitrator's award to do the sale and then we had raid before  judge palmer to let them do the sale and each time they failed to do it now they say this is all unfair well that horses left the barn in judge allen can't invoke any whitty in a situation like this even if it's unfair there's very limited scope for equity to act and they have to follow the law and they're not following the law here that the cases he cites is that you know aren't they but the heller case is not a twelve one thirty three case involved keeler had to do with a judgment that are asking for credit for you know personal injury action for for money he paid before the judgment was entered that has nothing to do with this at all there was no money there was no transfer there's no credits there's no demand it's a late effort attempt to unto an arbitration award and a judgment so we would ask that this judgment be reversed thank you very much so thank you for