seeks reversal in a forceful entry to take her case of a trial court order below already in possession of all five ms jones has run subsidized apartment to her landlord hispanic housing this case is centered around an october subsequently are five years later ten years later and it doubt with the same basic issue that that the suit began with whether or not your client had a right to fashion  limited case and controversies and therefore just should be immediately circuit disregarded this all started as an agreement between the parties correct best right and the agreement was because your client did not want to be addicted from the this really ever really in agreement that your client entered into because she knew she wasn't going to be able to fulfill the terms of the agreement we would certainly argue that's a big problem with this as well your honor is that  you know in terms of the actual context of how this happened ms jones is a subsidized housing town and she's not a sophisticated person she certainly does as good as a lawyer and she was essentially dragged into the dollars that's what i was i couldn't figure that out yet so i'm not totally sure where all these numbers come from oh and i thought that part of the problem that we tell him we don't have a transcript so we don't know what you know the court considered and you know either as to whether or not she was entitled to stash and whether or not the product that was purported to be owed was proven to be out if we don't know what you know one of the issues that she how does this come before us what happened is that ms jones who was not served with the motion to reinstate and for possession said the first time she learned about it was when the sheriff showed up at her door at which point she of filed a motion at this point i came on the case as well and she filed a motion to vacate the previous order she was not served with and also to is a little bit you know up in the air whether they appear for a limited purpose or from our limited purpose in this case ms jones appear to apparently just enter this agree to order so whether she actually  because i think the public policy here favors resolutions of these matters are settled and if you look at what the ten it was facing here she was facing the loss of her subsidy because of aware of it least violation if they proceed to accept right at that point they therefore waive that lease violation so once a lease violation is known of the landlord stops excepted right at that  point to proceed with the case so once the case was resolved through the settlement agreement there was outstanding right to it of course there was the court costs paid that my client side reimbursement from that was using occupancy for order if you would issue a sanction in that same ship was possession of the premises those were orders issued by the court in this case we have an order agreed to by the parts which i think i case still want to had had a hearing if there was a violation of this or and and he determined there was a violation of the agreement via a long history of this court which promoting pride i think the brought up language is a development oh what we've seen throughout the process you know out into being efficient for fifteen years one of the things that's required in order for the landlord to receive their subsidy in these cases world why that line is there for the same reason that i said just very what it was raised at the lower court level i don't know why that light is there i don't know if it's from a copy or i don't think it's from a copy because as a period but i matters that it was an additional this is a one page document that was signed by the fed it just very stated that it is his practice although he couldn't remember you know the specific case but every time he enters a decree order and these are frequent orders entered by bassman case there was an agreed oh order as to the use an occupancy order and then additionally the circle management case you know this was the best case this was an order entered as the case continued you know was not a final disposition of the case for the final settlement of the case simply because of the paragraph for holding this thing open for you know time immemorial and