appeal arises out of a dispute resulting in the terminations of back contract and the rights of the parties following that the issues that are reduced are whether or not the trial court properly night summary judgment i'm specific issues following the word arbitration a binding arbitration whether that award is clearly erroneous on its face and lastly whether the trial court improperly denied a motion to modify the walk or that's exactly what they did they created a utility worker for the purpose of managing operating and supervising the services of its water and sewer system in this case and so that's the posture of ninety five there was a contract that was entered into in december of ninety ninety five with aqua management service company apple management service company is and to see that manages water and sewer system in two thousand those disputes came to a had and there were letters sent back and forth a period of time where the utility board asserted that i call was not properly managing the water system that it was not properly collecting it wasn't properly reading there wasn't enough in home that was being brought in by i brought in order to improve the system and that was a dispute that arose based on the performance of the actually a notice that ends in october of two thousand and two aco outlining all of the facts to their performance apo response to that saying again all those are those problems are problems that you created that problems we created we're not going to fix those problems because we don't have an obligation to fix those problems there was a meeting that was howell by the utility board of november and the resolution was passed declaring the contract terminated the leader of iraq or the president zakk was present at that meeting and the minutes from the meeting reflect that after some discussion and his objection to the complaints by the utility board he stated that the water system was now the utility boards and left the meeting waits for the purposes of the courts understanding the nature of the dispute and the dislike of these pardons the litigation then commands and this appeal was brought because in the course of the litigation it's a little bit different procedur starting over at the arbitration so they had issue was preserved in that respect the ninety day rule doesn't apply because the issue of whether or not the township was sad over specific provision of the contract directly or pared back seventeen of the contract that says you know separate in our brief with respect to how they doubt because they have different standards of review somewhat and they are take place at different times the other two issues drove the summary judgment that we believe the trial court here with respect to the country being pointed out initially because of the i suppose that would be true yes i don't i don't know that we ever found a separate parents i have we amended the complaint and allege that we were you know proceeding i behalf of the township for the purposes of prosecuting the utility boards claims it's an affirmative defense that the defendants raise i believe it's the fourth affirmative defense fourth or fifth it says under the quote it's only what can so in its own name so we voluntarily amend our complaint for that purpose i mean the the attempt to make an agreement also because the with regard to arbitrators in this case and counsel gave a sort of a a long winded explanation as to why that's true however the railing is in this case is that it does apply and when the parties agree to submit this case the binding arbitration five hundred forty something thousand dollars at that point in telling about five months later we may be have a walk with service a motion to confirm that word in the interim period no motions were from our perspective the award is very clear counsel also spoke to issues of to whom does the word apply well in this case as is clear from the record claims were made against both do wonder obviously doesn't apply it the owner of attrition act is very clear as well as the case law that came out of this district and others that if you don't make any kind of a motion within the ninety day requisite time frame you're bound by that finding and that is the case here  our briefs there is no difference the board unit is the same member it's the same members and we've also submitted one new when the trial court considered the township's motion to modify the final judgment order in this case  we submitted documents which were part of the record that established that the the township financials contain a reference in which council to the township says there is no distinction between the two so you can't have one argument on one hand saying this is only an act of the township go for that i'm sort of a utility worker therefore the township is not bound well at the same time make a statement in in public financial reporting that there is no distinction between the two  and again in the in the documents in the record is far and also what counts as representations within financial reporting there was no distinction between the two in that goes back to also that the procedural aspect of this judgment to reflect that the final judgment should be only against the utility board and at that point one inch in terms of the underlying contract the problem with that is is that that point the township is out or was asking the we believe it's the township's attempts that somehow to limit the judgment soley to the utility board because i believe only if we assume that we then absolve the township of having any liability for some reason bad believe they are in a way we also we don't believe there really is a distinction as the trial court found it in response to the motion to modify the final judgement the trial court ruled that there is no distinction between the two given the information that was presented and also that the trial court did not have authority to act in the way of the the required ninety day window of time in which the township should have made a motion to break it or modify the were based on the arguments th review but at your review evidence that was submitted in that november of two thousand and thirteen for the purposes of then are of somehow modifying or clarifying in a world which we think is very clear to  is remember these are these are three private individuals and there again i think it's very important to stress the fact that now it would be unfair there was a procedure and there's case law that says that if you don't exercise your your rights under the specific tiny mechanisms of the statute you're bound because that's the idea behind an arbitration which is give the parties finality at that point n as certain cases says beginning ation at that point there's always the risk that one of the arbitrators saying ok well clarify the words make a change in this respect which we feel is inconsistent with the prior finding which we feel is inconsistent with the prior evidence that was not it so where does that leave us that that point do we go to the trial court for another ruling are we back in front of this court for further argument on the same just as turner getting ready to one of the questions he asked me it was about whether or not there is a distinction between the township and utility board and when you review the record you'll see that the evidence that was presented by well we i mean the motion to clarify the and they went on to say was it really do that and then he went on to say well i think there's no distinction but that was wrong on the evidence that was submitted to the our traders and i don't think there's any dispute about that so for the purpose of addressing bank one issue specific language of the contract there being no liability then i read the dissenting opinion more for the issue of saying well i really think that the counter is what from the start because it exceeded the time well it in the first paragraph of this and the video after reviewing the is a county board i believe it would suggest that that language that is included in their first paragraph is relative to the case law setting out the legal precedent that a fourth cannot find successive boards with professional type contracts was appropriate to say who's liable under the contract in this instance the parties that it can trade for township liability if they wanted to they could have but they didn't contract out chicago so now they're trying to get the benefit of a bargain that was not agreed to by the parties by the entire time but for the purposes of argument if we were to assume that they were the same people on those two separate boards that would be true but there's never been a dispute that you took the board was unlawfully organized that it did not very independently and one of the arguments that's raised by the the corporate name issue you know if you're not a proper corporate name and you enter into a contract with somebody i can't defend patrick by saying oh we're happy with corporation and you have a real good name statute so no you can't do that so i think that if the you to the board enter into a contract