in this case be arbitrated nevertheless despite the plain language of the agreement that she entered into she chose to file her claims in court as a consequence american general filed a motion to compel arbitration of those  issue the the quick quick case was decided and we had supplemental briefing on the impact that case on this issue during that during that briefing we communicated with aaa and we presented evidence t and they further elaborated that even in situations where the the north twenty would otherwise apply it still they would still take the appeal arbitration if there is a court order compelling arbitration let me just cut to the chase i think the trial court acknowledged that this was an arbitrary manner that even the complaint by the borrower that the greenman itself was somehow unconscionable they didn't really present any persuasive argument on that but it comes down to whether or not there are managers legal constraints that are extrinsic to their agreement that prevent arbitration i take it that you think quick click missed the mark a little bit tell us  a few of the reasons why i think quick click doesn't doesn't apply here the credit self distinguish quickly by the way in it's order noting that in quick quick there had been a finding by the trial court that the mor cases the court itself noted the circuit court noted it said there hadn't been any rulings on it there hadn't been any findings or picard to whether the moratorium applied and in fact aaa had given provided some information additional information that wasn't available in the  commonly referred to as a delegation provision and delegation provision exists in this arbitration agreement specifically says that issues relating to the enforceability the arbitration agreement as a whole must in itself be determined by the arbitrator ability arguments but this argument saying that the agreement isn't enforceable based on the unavailable at the aaa this in additional argument we feel is covered by the delegation provision and should be resolved by aaa and we believe the court's  supported that let me ask you a question and that's something that my colleague justice smith alluded to and that is you know these cases are all of the nominated motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings asking for  would agree if that i would agree that the order to compel arbitration is only to the extent that it's in the agreement and what the arbitration clean itself this does not compel anybody to file anything what it is is a it's basically a form selection agreement and it says if you're going to pursue a claim this is where how you have to do it where you have to do let's let's then again cut to the chase and what is the relief then that you're asking yes that y it is and filed one of the you know if i missed him off the sides and actually i don't want to complain about this anymore and that that's occurred to and cases and what generally happens a lot of times what the judges will do in their discretion is but the the and that and this was a federal court obviously but the court went ahead and dismissed the claims of eventually saying you had a plenty of time to bring them in arbitration you chose not to which is their right obviously and the claims were dismissed so i think there was a misunderstanding and i think this is the point you're making of the relief that was being side here it wasn't the force anybody either us or her to actually file our claims arbitration it was to enforce the actual agreement which says that if you're going to bring these claims you need to bring them in front of the arbitrator you cannot proceed with them in court because that's what the agreement on invidiously provides for you ramp up why don't you address this by surprise and trying to navigate through that we did make an attempt to do that actually it's difficult because the it doesn't contemplate somebody fine a claim against themselves but that would be the lender filing an arbitration against itself or that that would play right into the moratorium language wouldn't exactly that's what happened it was odd first of all because you have to show on how much the claim is for what relief you're seeking and all this is tied to the fees that are involved so this instance we presume to the court's order the business of sworn filing and there was not really a compelling arbitration it actually fell right into the moratorium and the point is that that was completely consistent with the evidence we provided to the court and not a surprise at all and that you know and i believe the evidence would have supported that they would have taken him if an order had been entered granting our motion now the court obviously didn't didn't decide that they decided that the aaa should decide that but that was consistent with the evidence we provided presented to the court  why should they file arbitration against themselves i was it makes any sense well you're on an address this in in the response brief they're not actually filing a claim against themselves instead what they're doing is seeking to have aaa be the referee of this between themselves missed them all just this week that you discussed with counsel who would you be committing legal malpractise if you didn't raise the moratorium if they filed something well i don't know about legal malpractise but  asked for it clearly the dispute is my client saying american general violate the truth in lending act as well as some of the statute writes your aaa can see that they submitted a copy of the claim with their their filing documents aaa still determined we didn't want to have anything to do with this arbitration well if if this is so important to have these counter claims for the truth in lending act heard why didn't you volunteer to the court that you on behalf of your client would file it so as to avoid any moratorium well quite frankly honor my client wishes her forum for her dispute to be with the circuit court and not arbitration maybe she should have signed the arbitration agreement well you're on to that that's a whole nother story cancer building and again with that we're not here arguing that because quite frankly we can't we not at this point where we can appeal that part of judge be less or do we disagree with and we've said so but that's not really what's before this court r unconscionable because quite frankly she denied the motion and so now the only issue just before the court was could she prop he denied that motion for whatever grounds and it not until there if they had been a decision and quite frankly what i think just the less be set up is exactly what she would want to do what happened here was she didn't want to be the determining entity of whether or not aaa takes this or not takes this because she recognized the quick click had point that if triple a was going to institute a moratorium there could not be an arbitration she didn't want to be the person who made that call aaa makes the call she granted american general leave to ask aaa to make the the person filing because unless she's required to do it she doesn't have to and under the arbitration agreement which i agree with counsel you know why they don't want to because the you know his demo it doesn't want to have to pay for the cost of arbitration that was an issue either party could lift to start arbitration there was no requirement that you the american general seek arbitration well mr maule instead of either party had a beef with each other they could go to court if they wished and if the other party says i and specifically in the agreement it said that if the lender does exercises foreclosure remedy and if i work wants to challenge them in any way shape or form it has to go to arbitration well actually  how can you avoid the let me live let me now look directly to the record the actual agreement does not say that your honor instead what you agreement does the sets for kind of two separate sections of the world so to speak claims that are covered and covered claims are fit into the arbitron pool arena and even there again if you look at the actual language of the agreement which i agree with counsel when the circuit court we have the problem the language of the agreement not some philosophy that we want to have arbitrations no we have to follow the agreement the agreement says either party can a left arbitration of a dispute even if it's already been started in court that bet something we strongly disagree with american general counsel or we do have the right to file a claims can stay in court and can not be even elected into arbitration covered planes would have included my clients counterclaims but again she had the election to go to court with them and if american joe wish against itself and your clients currently again it's not filing arbitration against itself it's not like it's fouling up claim against itself instead what they're doing is simply notifying aaa but they are the filing party they have to pay so they should pay for arbitration of claims raised by your client that the agreement says should be subject to arbitration they should pay for their agreement again we're going back to the contract way which their agreement s that that's the problem is that american general now has a problem with following the language that's actually in the agreement as opposed to simply well we want to arbitrate so make mr maule do it and if you look at the motion they filed there's been some discussion about how it was labeled the relief what this request is what actually is at issue the relief requested in that motion was to come peo miss them off to start arbitration this was the roll call now snuggle i'm not talking about the either party can study you want to go ahead and start it the good the circuit court should be put in the position of saying well i want to fix this or i guarantee there will be an arbitration and aaa might turn it down the american gentleman asked so i'm going to  quick points i just want to make clear that i agree that green the agreement doesn't require anybody the file anything that's not what's in the agreement and that's not what we're seeking here what the agreement says is that if if american general bring certain claims or if this democracy certain claims and they're covered by the arbitration agreement they have to be arbitrated and perspective the language she is pointing into the arbitration agreement i'm not going to get into much the arbitration agreement it's before you it's clear they have the language she was talking about electing and so on it's not the actual language here there's there's a provision that specifically talks about counterclaims to foreclosures that's apple that's crystal clear electricians really a kind a non issue anyway since this is he filed the claims improperly we notified them that the of the agreement and said they had to be arbitrated so even if it had fallen and that provision it had been triggered and that point they were required to be arbitrated so i think the agreement is clear and i think the relief that was appropriate here it is clear as well if you think you will take under advi