on the statute of limitations it is the plaintiff epilogues position that the ruling below and the defense arguments on the state's limitations simply do not comport with the way this court and the supreme court of the homo i have treated these claims i understand this the novo review on the other hand she was i think it's important to mention at the outset that the trial judge below said because a lay person was aware that a company was still in business and would remain in business that that began the running the statute of limitations the case law in this area that we cited in that candidly the defendant site simply does takes a completely different approach well what is the approach that you're advocating it will become i don't understand from what you just that what is the issue precisely that we have to decide are you saying that when a cause of action accrues is a question of fact is that what you're saying and therefore it is immune from summary judgment or can we say it's a question of law and of these facts therefore the trial judge got it right what we're saying is just the scarcity is this unless in the words of the lucy case and we're not case in all the other ones have unless it is perfectly obvious that there was only one point in time when when this everybody knew exactly what was going to happen then it is a question of fact for the jury i think that's what the cases say and i think that's what they mean in the jackson so let's let's go ahead and get to the crux of it what are at least t points in time that you believe exist in this case the one point in time we have from the defendants we know what they are saying what is the point in time that you say should begin the malpractise allegation is that what you're saying absolutely the lucy case to files damages so it's a question of law as opposed to a question of fact well obviously it depends on the context in which it comes up not every case should be given what the statutes that the statute begins to run when the plaintiff knows or should have known a that the lawyer committed now practice and b that recover which is what every one of these cases say warnock learning curve toys lucy then he hasn't suffered the type of damages that begin the running of the statue of limitations he hasn't had a judgment entered against talk about the adverse judgment occurring but the claim begins to run when there's an adverse judgment against the clock they also discussed that rolling up in the context of the some sort of caught a case within a case and if you win the case against this individual then it gives rise to a cause of action against the lawyer that helped this individual  that's a an affirmative defense obviously both the jury and the trial judge found that mr putnam head in effect stolen the business but latches also might suggest something sinister or your statue of limitations cause if even if the plaintiff didn't have knowledge of specific things a reasonable person in his position knew enough to know to soup up the objective standard of besant translate into knowing that the corporate lawyers did this for did that in fact the testimony in this record shows that the quest for lawyers to literally withheld information adverse judgment that triggered the nature and extent of your damages that absolutely once once and what if you give us a little bit more detail on that point what were your damages well the bandages in the lucy framing that are directly true there's there's damages and there's damages attributable to the lawyers negligence the damages attributable to the latest negligence work so basically what you're saying it the result of that which was found to be the case but it's a staff putting it there's no doubt now i don't see obviously the role so let's go back to my original question yes what were you d damages were attributable to counsel and attorneys the damages were going fully under took to represent bluewater partners it committed to make it a broker dealer as a company as a standalone company and to obtain for it the copyright and licensing rights to the trading software that was going to be used to promote the procrit you the business plan was  it not only didn't make people water it but it affirmatively attempted to prevent it from being a broker dealer by going to the f c c at the request of mr putnam and asking the s e c for an exemption from the broker dealer registration requirements for blue water so it did that opposite of what it committed to give them a traffic copyright assignment for the towns who were just going to give the software back in exchange for stock and it never transaction so when all the best settled who were its original client long before terra nova was even a corporation its original client was left with no broker dealer business and  no protective software interest that it could license sell or do anything with it didn't own the software thanks to the failure to get exhibit ten executed and revise as it should  when the defendant tells you well who were changes business purpose it was just going to be a license or software we dispute that but it didn't even they didn't even protect the rest self it be a license sort of software so it lost its interest in a broker dealer business and when it was left by itself it had no software to market to anyone because it didn't own the software that was created by virtue of the towns and bluewater getting together in business now the damages in this case are substantial that the broker dealer business ended up being worth many millions of dollars so the damages to answer your question yes a happy authority to have consummated that stated negatively when did they get fired so but beyond that point they couldn't have done any well that relationship ended in july of one nine hundred ninety five our expert professor has said that point knew that terra nova have been created as an ally of corporate layer under blue water to protect the towns and programmers from texas liability and what's called the light bill some trade goes south for a hundred thousand dollars they don't want to be liable for that's what that's what my client did so this notion about a limited terno he knew the byway had been cut out that had nothing to do with whether foley had made the top layer what lawsuit triggered a cause of action against a party not involved in that lawsuit i mean i can understand where if you lose a lawsuit and you say your the attorney that triggers a cause of action against a lawyer that has long ended the relationship that on well the last part is this it is an interesting qualifier because the learning curve case was it was a trade secret case of the federal or it was tried between the two toy companies and the plant that learning curve lost got hit for six million dollars judgment this court said two and a half years ago that the adverse judgment for six million dollars didn't make the statute of limitations begin to run six million dollar jury verdict this court said the learning curve case not the statute begins to ron christie the learning curve company has suffered actual the monster book damages by having the six million dollars very ground thank you thank you clients were never told that he was promised a source of interest but back to the point of a cruel that's your cruel that's questions about the discovery that well you'll agree that if they would have won the other case there may not be a positive action against  which on the part of a blue water and if they had knowledge in that case they had to have knowledge as to their cause of action against the lawyers that assisted by two points just disc and just discordant affirmed just such kroeber who said under the reasonable person standard of latches even if this appears to be the case the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the facts  responsible for acting at the direction of this very same individual the difference is the lawyer had a duty to the cop the lawyer represented bluewater are also not i'm not saying that there is no duty there i'm saying  thank you very much a given us a very interesting case will take it under advice