on august thirteenth two thousand and nine the trial court granted that and its motion to dismiss for want of prosecution the defendant and his counsel were then ordered to draft a written order for entry by the trial court under supreme court rule two seventy one the defendant who was the profiling party in this matter should have prepared and presented the written order to be entered unless excused by the trial court no written order in this case was ever explanation which was well that the parties were working on a settlement over the course of the years prior and that the plaintiff was in fact ready for trial following all of the discovery judicial system doesn't necessarily trust lawyers to move their own tastes we have to we have to provide some exists to the warriors to move their case say never move that's true and it was never brought up to a call to call by the trial court i'm sure that if it had prior to that the parties were different prepared to move forward however that never happened and as you can see sometimes you cannot trust the maybe your opinion that it was not a good reason is the play to split that that was an excusable reason for delaying over the course of those three years as we're all aware many cases do settle that is the point of trying to move the cases along it's to try to get the parties to get all the information in their hands so that they can come to a settlement and result things with felt the need for a trial usually work to reduce or lose who knows good and unfortunately in this case that did not happen the parties were unable to come to an agreement perhaps arguing over pennies in this case however it was not an inexcusable as i have explained the parties were working on a settlement they were ready for trial there is no inexcusable delay in this case no intentional or willful disregard and no prejudice to the defense accordingly if the plaintiff's position that the trial court committed abuse of discretion and the matter should be remanded to the trial court and set for trial in terms of the motion to reconsider i know that was another issue in this case it is trying to determine what the court was looking for and where i ended up at is and supreme court rule two eight seven b which in part states that no motion shall be filed in small claims cases without prior leave of the court in doing that if le page forty five that decision in small claims cases post trial motions may not be filed without leave a court based on that i believe if the court reviews the docket from the vermillion county because a motion for leave had been filed with the motion for reconsideration in this case there was no motion for leave and based on rule two eighty seven b i would suggest this for that as a result the thirty day time limit for filing the notice of appeal actually should have right hand starting on august thirteenth two thousand and nine when the motion to dismiss was granted and in fact the thirty day should have begun then so the filing of the notice of appeal in april twenty eighth two thousand and ten with the most when it was finally wrote a motion for reconsideration was finally rule upon was will be on the time limit for having filed a notice of appeal and th further postponement there simply is no satisfactory explanation for the delay we've heard that there was settlement negotiations going on if that were the case had it could at the time of the motion for its missile of want prosecution or certainly during the motion for reconsideration but there's absolutely no evidence in the record of a letter from any attorney any attorneys between each other any phone calls any indications there's just some work this settlement negotiations were going on in quite simply as the court even noted in its aug thirteenth hearing that this is a case that's gone on too long and that they used to have docket calls where they would simply go through and dismiss these cases or notice to the parties that they would and that's what probably should happen in this case so the court was merely doing appears to me in ruling on this case was merely doing what it considers it could have done on its own perhaps even of your two before it as this case was never moving so i think number one i would use some rice good at least position is simply the sport doesn't have jurisdiction as a result of the failure to fight time would file a notice of appeal and if it does there is certainly no evidence that the truck or to have used its discretion knew that there was no excusable the way for the extended time the three year time period to his counsel's indicated it would probably be a one hour thank you thank you