with that part of the rule here today might be the rule plainly says that the matter is to be considered as if no appeal had been taken once the mandate is filed enforcement the judgment may be had of course another proceedings may be conducted and then the operative language is as if no appeal had been taken we suggest that the rule jurisdiction to amend modify extend or entertain further requests for relief there are no published cases on file or opinions on point so this is in a sense a case first impression in that after appeal the question precisely is whether the truck court is jurisdiction after thirty days to entertain the fee petition without regard to the previously filed notice of appeal and the suggestion that further that the request for attorney's fees can be even part of the original action or collateral for the original action it makes no difference again we're looking to what happens if feat petition the rule here after appeal the self executing party the rule says the clerk shall probably filed mandate i suppose that's in there so that the clerk doesn't conveniently just park the mandate somewhere until at the convenience of one or more of the parties or the court the timeline could be triggered but it but then were immediately faced with in this situation where there persis spain are which really has nothing to do with anything in the first instance that case doesn't even tell us when the mandate was actually filed in the proper course and we don't know when that actually happened and we can't fix a timeline not decided in this place to see that if time if time and this could have been arranged it was clear that way in that case it simply dealt with the issue of whether or not the proceedings the fee petition was clearly filed within thirty days of time and this was not an issue so we're not arguing that the court could not have entertained beefy petition within that thirty day period all right and simply is after the thirt difficult one yet it's a very important one because the feet to the result of a substantial award of feet we just ask this court find a hole under rule three sixty nine after the mandate the jurisdiction now there were the best friends to this notion of thirty days however this court considered whether or not the traffic court had jurisdiction to enter the award of fees and came to the conclusion that and back to the circuit court do you have jurisdiction if there was an issue with that time with jurisdiction whether it be under rule three sixty nine or this thirty day notion that the defendant raises this court certainly u was dismissed out of the complaints i am the proceedings by the trial court by the circuit court then about a year later that party that had been dismissed out petitioned the for the fees incurred in the trial court proceeding this case especially to similar in that these parties are still a party to this case and this case was very much still pending on other issues with the filing a motion for fees nearly a year later have that that their decision in her view would apply to factual scenarios outside of that situation for example on time i was very similar to this case and that you know maybe the issuance of the mandate the finding are intended to be the same thing but they're not the rule reads in terms of when the mandate is filed it's kind person spine our says nothing about what the mandate was filed in that case why misinterpreting that case to this court because it does not say when the minute it was filed and i challenge you to find it in that file the case says when the mid it was issued period secondly this is the end of this case they want to refer the other proceedings pending in the circuit court and now in this court the case based on mr miscues perjury that is winning its way up here but that's all it's out there to suggest that this case is still lingering is not correct the rule three sixty nine there is an absolute equivalency between taking an appeal and as if an appeal was taken they wish those the rule self executing if you don't do that on your part