morning ladies and gentlemen her first case of the morning is one one seven seventy three warren county soil and water conservation district versus the welters individually at all are you ready to see otherwise shall be available in every case by proceedings here under regardless of the nature of the order of judge which relief is sought or of the proceedings in which it was entered and the statute continues to state that except for a section note that in my briefing i did not contain a statutory houses because frankly the statues clear certainly expansive but there are there are any terms in there that are difficult to understand or cannot be given their point in order meaning what the relief on the grounds of the form of the remedy those are all in the period questions so long as it existed at some point in the prior practice of courts in this state it still exists and i believe if my math is correct it has existed for roughly one hundred  forty eight years i believe outsiders opinion or case from eight hundred seventy which they said it's basically these are old and out days and that was an eight hundred fifty seven and then they said we're going to replace them with the motion and for the next hundred fifty years this court has routinely decided that equitable leave can be available under the statute now given the way the statute is written so expansively it seems clear there is no universal injustice or unfairness a result of the judgement which is the case today and essentially the statute is opposed to capital if there was a way to get samples to leave you still can get  decision people this vincent was a petition brought by a criminal conviction after a post conviction hearing actor titian in which he claimed that i believe his five criminal convictions were language of the staff the statute says that all relief you're due for a painful is a payable and is available so when the court states that this was certainly true when such relief was available to the common the regs they're essentially stating that it is still available now because it the vinson decision that says quote civil practice rules and president factored out any notions about a trial court's quote discretion to do justice now the word discretion was in posts which i believe means to the court that does not mean all th statutory for it meant that it was no longer discretionary in the sense that we have rules of civil procedure and that we have precedence and that trial courts simply are allowed to decide whatever they wish and you know review there would be no standard i believe unjust or honorable and that would necessarily require the court use some discretion to determine what is it is not on just what is discretion what is due diligence what is unjust those are all questions that believe these evolved as far back as my research took me sometime around the time so war and that the idea was that in the course of england they had decided that the ritz that this simply was not working anymore and i believe since the statute corporates all these prior remedies and prior available grounds for relief the proper analysis is going to need to be one what is the manner in which the case was maybe i have this wrong and pointed out if i do put the trial court below didn't believe i think you already said that that it could relax the due diligence record around thirty three and and therefore it never considered the question of whether it should or have the power freed as was the law prevents that it would clearly undo the judgment and proceed with further proceedings and actually the court specifically stated i do remember this that it was difficult to think of a more unjust  say trial court was interact you do in fact have a discretion the trial court has already stated the pardons that it would do so if it had such a scratch necessary now the plaintiff did not do any briefing on the first time they stood on their verified lines ok thank you that more than they are with those missions that are being brought already that if they were to be reviewed and overall in every case the court was going to very difficult time because the court knows in criminal proceedings those are almost the last motion that are statement and those are decisions that traditionally we we've to the fact finder the trial court we do not review those do no and even if these these petitions are judged as they can be as the statute allows time it's like a free shot and the other issue would be the court would allow a little bit of tension to select their standard of review depending on what they choose to do for example in this case we've submitted affidavits and stood up and under and if the court believes my argument is correct in advance it should be reworded in some sense to still allow these equitable remedies the question then becomes do likewise meet those standards  persons they did all that was required of them and more investigate the title to that property i would also point out to the court that to this day in this record there is no compelling deed that shows that the plaintiff actually owns this prob she doesn't own on the facts of this case if if we get the facts how does the lack of your client keeping up with their case have on the  is dismissed outright it's treated as a motion for judgment pleadings or summary judgment that is either by or granted counsel was vincent even contemplating the prison issue though the out those circumstances not just circumstances that of by the way a void judgment but every circumstance where it possible to fourteen zero one petition come before the trial opinion from the trial court he is is and was really clear on the only power that he had and i believe his statements that that that could or would i pick but you also have to remember that when we came forward with back on that it that probably but that's something that is it's an issue i guess if it goes back from work and make that determination i will have a response and that may require time correct correct and what do you think there should be a discretionary if use of discretion and to diligence from from a practitioner's point of view i think that would be impossible for us to follow in the trial work to do know exactly what we need to do to get to the trial court and what we need to present so personally i do believe that the two sets of review four separate problems in the two fourteen one analysis is something that dances and to basically indicate that as a matter was there was no due diligence on the part of the watchers hall pursuing their case and putting on their defense question well it isn't is it because the court found there was no evidence to back up their stated that they did on the prop and they say we don't need to provide that evidence because we're benson others they said that they don't need to provide that evidence because  been made for purposes of the fall are only have a vegetarian follow scene and they were clearly contradicted by the defendant's statements in the affidavit so they rely on those missions to establish how they own the more opportunities to do so that would certainly short circuit my best argument on appeal of my best argument for justice for this case and it hasn't and it hasn't been done now the bona fide purchaser issue that's not going to go away individuals said well wait a minute what's going on with her attorney and as i said before is going to datable that mr pitchers disappearance was negative and they did not do a very good job of keeping up with him but it's also unde that they provide him with answers who can point that he was filed the sole filing that mr fisher made was i have the answers they're prepared or signed they're ready to be filed i just dropped the ball and i dropped the ball that is an important question when that happens it's all of the notices in this this case for the sixteen months that mr refute points out is the way they always do mr fisher and if he was no longer a license to practice law fall those are all in effect upon my clients now certainly doesn't change the fact that they could have hall and said let's what's going on let's figure out let's keep up with their cases but it doesn't weigh against that time period because impression that we've done all we can they proper suit they have the right bring their suit and potentially if they're correct then yes martin he directs an adverse possession of the land but that doesn't change the house farmers my clients and their law they're still bona fide workers so yes it's true and i can debate that they should have kept up better better contact mr pitt but we certainly as as members of the bar land maybe the court trial court would have said well no you know they they said they did you said they did it's a fact issue and you did show up and i'm going to find that that's you know just that's justice but that's not what happened what we had was one side saying we don't own the land at