consolidated with a number of other places i am and what we are trying to do today in the reason for the appeal of the reason of proceeding in the lower court is trying to protect margaret mchenry's interest in i fifty million dollars and went home and just within a few years it was as we say a reversal of fortunes the the when the bankruptcy petition was filed it was estimated that that was close to two hundred fifty million yes i have a problem with that statement because i don't understand how you get there from the marriage dissolution of marriage a dissolution cannot negate or i'll file prior security judgment yeah based upon you were ever the answer is no and would depend on whether or not it's prejudgment in one post judgement prejudgment i think the answer is yes post judgment i  timing problem because while on a day back here they could have been forced to contractually against all the that he had but before they did forces here in between oh you read in   the motion for turnover seeks a turnover of the distribution is made by the l l c that is the order only just discusses these distributions that were mortar pursuant to the l l c act and we were receiving those distributions for quite some time and then when an involuntary bankruptcy was filed against mr mchenry the hour i see is concern will i understand that and i only say that just to explain why it was made in not was not addressed in our briefs because we can raise kind of i believe that it is final order i unfortunately i didn't cite the case and i don't have it in front of me but looking at the case ride believe it's a final order because it finally resolves that creditors the rights of the party as to this specific piece of property i believe in a supplementary proceeding you don't have to motion for turnover as to several pieces of property that we haven't been able to come to a resolution otherwise with so some of the property in this matter we kind of result that through sentiment or we you know there  agreement there this why and margaret objected to she objected to other things as well but so this was why and that was resolved that we have there are some some other pieces of property we have i'm attending motion for turnover that's been briefed  it has sort of been entered in continued because we we had several new judges everybody kept having to recuse themselves this past summer so we couldn't get a hearing but also i think  we are talking about because there's many entities that he owns business as we list them specifically in the order and this would fully resolve the rights of first marriage and a bill of rights of the party with regard to that that most of the other properties were claiming that eileen attached to that property prior to the dissolution proceeding and therefore are are lina's security or to her marital bow it depends on the property many and some of the properties are shares in corporations their personal property therefore they would attach by service of the citation the elsie's are a little bit different  with regard i i know regard to that we brought up the issue of the tax refund that is different because the tax refund was issued jointly to margaret and will young there's a subset of the concepts in conflict between the two orders one order slowly deal dealt with whether this is marital property under the marital dissolution act which means that it's a part of that universe of property that will be distributed to william and language in the order went beyond what was requested and motion for turn over the motion for turn over clearly establish we clearly argued in that motion that are leaning interest the superior to margaret's marital interest make rulings there has to be a pleading or motion before the court nothing in the pleading or motion filed by first merits to move request to turn over asked for all of what we