go well for a number of reasons first of all i think the main reason in the classic sense being an adversarial lawsuit like a contra in this situation where there's an adversarial divorce proceeding and then within that same proceeding there's a dispute as to whether the attorney representing one of the parties the the disgruntled part of a service some of the same claims of defenses against a lawyer that were involved in the divorce mention in fact there's no mention of maiming at all but the release if you look at the i don't know ten or so resigning vision to all the other language is that now you're asking trying t to bring him into this lead again cation which is a limited type of a proceeding a completely different type of case i don't know if i mean to your question but it would be a rather bizarre situation here of trying to be in there at the same time that its own lawyers representing are with and certainly i assume if that was the intention of the parties it could be more ideally drafted but added space is a general release of all claims its title to general release in many different places in the release the parties state their intention to release any and all claims appellant would have it read in a vacuum so that we're only looking at the two places the release where the parties are addressed language is misleading i think that the interpretation of the language by appellant is misleading i think that to say that there is a single unit googe in trader together in this release is misleading they're clearly not together has filed an adversary he's got representing them his criticism now that it should mainly defendants didn't present the relevant evidence didn't submit the right jury instructions those options  if it were determined that there were in fact it genuine issue of material fact i don't i don't believe i would submit to you that there was not enough in his deposition to prove or suggest that  this release issue for just a moment on him reminding her that are our hmong our motion in our position here it's based on in illinois supreme court case that deals with  hindsight to see some things that could have been done better but based on the based on the mall this release is it generally released there's no dispute that these parties were aware of the no practice this i believe it is i believe that's too true but one arrives we were talking about the language of this release that refer specifically to claims relating to the lawsuit it doesn't say included with the limited to the lawsuit it including these according to the supreme court excessive fees that had to be remitted that was rock solid that was there and then when the door by filing what we now know was be a little bit better off than i was before i started this process and takes that risk and then has a procedure you know dr p by she's a procedure so that the patient is nothing worse off than he was discussion about resident cat has taken a little bit of a step beyond we were supposed to be at this point this was a summary judgment motion is the defense bird to show certain things in order for refugees to apply they have to show that the same partners who were involved in both but again it begs the question as to why are we required to file a counterpoint when we have a lawsuit already pending against these people and the you slice it and we don't have the same group of after two facts as to the two cases perhaps perhaps speculating if the defense had developed this question roof but never mentions this litigation that is pending and i don't think that at this development or lack of development of the record that the court