interests in parish owned property and it was clear throughout the litigation that that was the case the lawsuit was about an account at p and c bank and the question was who had certain interests in that account he had possible church and its episcopal diocese of quincy on the one hand or the incorporated diocese of quincy and the trustee corporation on the other hand it was undisputed in the stablished early on by the plaintiffs who are the a pelleas here that the account of p and c bank contain thirty eight distinct funds twenty three of those were owned by the diocese of  were owned by or restricted for the parishes and missions of the diocese and they were held by the diocese as custodian so the question in the lawsuit has been throughout which of the two groups again the  regard to the funds the twenty three of the distinct funds held at p t bank and at most which of those two groups was entitle to act as custody and of the property own by the parishes and missions bu held by by p and c bank in the name of the diocese but was never litigated in this case was asked to parish and mission ownership interests to the episcopal church or the episcopal recognized throughout this case because of the churches trust can also called its dennis canon which states which is that which is a church rule that was adopted in one nine hundred seventy nine shortly after the u s supreme court issued its decision  jones versus wolfe which states in relevant part all real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any parish mission or congregation is held in trust for this church in that in the a legally enforceable and trust interest that runs against parish and mission own property it was never litigated here and it couldn't have been because the parishes and missions were not even parties so as to the twenty three funds owned by the diocese this case is resolved everything and we're not contesting that but as to the funds owned by the parishes and missions at most all this suited was resolved which of the two groups could act as a stone even for those funds until we could live a gate the parish parish own funds and whether there's a trust interest that runs against them which is what is it issued in the peoria lawsuit now with the initial litigation was this distinction made between these times and the ownership interests yes and how some so plaintiff complaint talked about the rights sought resolution of the rights and liabilities the parties here to the parties were only at that point the  well this this should they have been party yes you know you're saying this was their interest there but they have an ownership interest in that in those times yes but they they were not parties and they were they should not have been because the that was carved out of a scope of the dispute now we hadn't talked about any parishes and missions own lots of other property that aside from the fifteen distinct funds it held the p s c bank they  estate they had theirs they have separate bank accounts all those we had they had not been mentioned in this lawsuit and they were never part of this lawsuit and they're all part of the county lawsuit which includes in our view the fifteen disputed fun so there was a motion to dismiss on the basis that that our counter claims had expanded the lawsuit and our response was no this lawsuit passed from the beginning only been about diocesan property and the having heard from both sides dismissed denied the motion it does but i guess what i'm wondering if you know it never dealt with the parish funds then why the request to freeze you know those funds as well i mean all the money that was part of it well when we first  bank we did not have our our diocese and we the physical church didn't have any information about the funds of the commingling of the funds of the character of that fund so when we wrote we knew they helped some funds and we knew they were in the name of the dioce twenty but the there was no way for us to know that that included funds that were own by parishes and missions now the it was still what was still an issue in that lawsuit was which which party could be the custodian so we had two groups of people who were asserting that they were the guys of twenty one was a group represented by the plaintiffs  who had left the peaceful church and claimed to have taken the diocese out of the church and one of the group minority group of loyal to skip aliens who said no you didn't take the diocese out of the church and it's still an episcopal diocese and that was that was at issue in the law how that unfolded and how the court ruled but we also know from what the trial court said and then ultimately the way this court ruled so the trial court at trial made a number of statements that that reflected an understanding that we weren't talking about parish property ownership interests so for example the court stated at one point they the plaintiffs are not trying to take out the parish property are they that's not what this is about that's in the appendix at  lose because they did it in part because the dentist can and did not express the mentioned diocesan property and the trial court also said that the dentist can and does not apply to diocesan property in its final order in judgment this court made the same distinction when it affirms the lower court's decision and said the dentist canon provides parish property parish property emphasized is held in trust for the diocese in the church and restricts  parishes ability to dispose of its property however it appears undisputed the churches can and do not contain similar language with respect to die off the property being held in favor of the church that was appeared to be a dispositive  distinction that this court threw would suggest that it too understood that parish property ownership interests and trust claims it might run a guest against those interests were not at issue  stop you right there yes your honor because when we have one of the trial court's order initially we said the property in question in this case consists of the funds and the national city account yes we did not say a portion of yes that's correct and  to the extent that their funds that the diocese and again we were disagreeing about who was the diocese but to the extent that the dice of suits holding funds as a custodian for the parishes or missions if  team all disputed funds money and diamonds and accounts held by national city are hereby declared to be owned by the diocese without any claim by the church yes and the court did say that although it did not define disputed funds and when it's talking about the diocese own clearly the diocese doesn't own the fifteen funds it has said it doesn't of the fifteen times it has said it said in its motion for partial release of and basically that's what the track court helped too well that the trial court in that section of the opinion was talking about ownership was talking about ownership and yes the ownership ownership was different as there are thirty eight fifteen separate funds to the extent we were litigating we were litigating over which group got it was got to be the diocese and therefore got to be the custodian of those funds but that that's that he did not correct bad because it's clear it whether he he didn't say and i'm mean a hundred percent of the that which is di yes the second point that i'd like to make is that the trial court on the motion to enforce both barred us from one thirty seven allow sanctions only when the parties filing is not well grounded in fact and warranted by this case law if you obviously if the court agrees with us in this instruction of the original order and then our position was well grounded even if a court disagrees we stand here in good faith expressing what we have thought about this case from the beginning and believe that it's we have not our conduct does not rise to the level of requiring or permitting hundred percent of everything in the bank if at that point it was understood or believed that some of those dollars were for parish  percentage is for another church or certain percentage so it was kind of internal accounting within that one bank account they were never separate in terms of the complaint  their phrase which was found at sea or sixty eight if we look at their amended answer it says that each diocese exercise has jurisdiction over its own  use and distribute any and all another circuit or in another county in another appellate district to overrule what has already happened here i can't see any good faith in that they did not go back to adam county and ask for clarification instead they go to a different power district to ask for the same way which they had been denied in adams county judge rahman made and those findings or really darn clear and since we do have findings i believe that the standard of review would be abuse of discretion i can not see any of the use of discretion as to pres thirty seven they appear to me that it requires that they petition for sanctions be filed in the litigation where the pleading was filed that's objectionable yes and where i think one thirty seven comes the release of funds and that ended motion did include a request for release of funds that were parish designated funds but they request were requested release of those funds to the plaintiffs and not to the parishes with did win control of the funds that's not the same thing as a control measures is not the same thing as an ownership interest on the on allegations of bad faith first of all i'd say that  six three there's an email exchange shortly before the mandate issues in the score on the of permanence we reach out to counsel for the other side to talk about this eighteen percent issue eighty percent of the funds and there's a core whole email exchange  around that issue from the other side saying nothing about a motion to poor enforcement or sanctions saying that we have to if we're going to reach out to p and c bank that we've made clear that we're not talking about the eighty two percent the december thirtieth rolls around and we haven't resolved anything but we're still hoping we're going to work things out without involving courts or the adams county court or the peoria county or so but the thirtieth rolls around we write a letter to p saying we still have the position that eighteen percent is is not to be released making clear we're not talking about the eighty two percent there are further e mails back and forth on the seventh and eighth of january and then as far as we're concerned of we then pull away our letter from p s c bank and on february third they issued a letter saying we're releasing all funds with our agreement that we will not enforce against them that was in error and nevertheless the the court's questions about one rule one thirty seven bring to light appellate argument that that the pleading for which we were sanctioned was the pleading that we filed in yourself when you're accused of violating a court order by telling the full truth and so that's obviously fails as a basis for sanctions under rule thirty seven that doesn't give us the pleading that's needed in november of two thousand and thirteen