we don't believe there was a billboard or was there a number of issues remain it's especially the issue of attorney fees which were reserved but being the case we proceeded on the hearing on the motion of foreclosure on the mortgage in response to their in a timely manner our walk file be counted claim based upon defense of student no based upon information that we had received are merely running along consistent with cases that ruled on the fifth district about a bank on a commercial no calculating their interest based upon three sixty five over three sixty it doesn't sound like a lot but th was in excess of six million dollars it essentially would have the effect of raising the interest rate from about five point two five to about five point three four believes our calculation they in a financial matter so we're still there and you know which had been obtained by confession a judgment on november nineteenth two thousand and eight in the law case the court took it under advisement and they have point there was no precedent no legal argument and no standing to even raise that issue as a defense there had been a court of today a point that three sixty five three sixty was attacked once in a case that i read from one hundred eighty something it wanted being resolved on a different ground but this is the information that came available between the november and the time of the counterclaim was information i think before they have a white head we made that argument there was no cross i mean there was no legal base there was a calculation we could have raised but we had no no reason to believe that that was at that time a good faith guard because there was no war no press when it had been attacked and when it had been printed and when it was public information the counter claim was the procedurally what occurred after that when when the court dismissed the counter claim based upon the determination that the motion of a kid hearing had really been ruled on the old case we tried literally within days of her ruling at the motion to vacate had been denied so the knowledge to us was to meet we filed the two fourteen zero one motions clearly within the two years it was more than thirty days but less than two years we cited due diligence  court cannot apply rescue to cattle when there is continuing action based upon the same issue this is a very unique matter really there's a foreclosure on the mortgage and there may or may not be a suit on the note in the mortgage foreclosure is when under chapter fifteen to the bank the work e g asked for position premises everything was switching the scales there was a confession judgment on the note itself but when the bank then files the foreclosure action to seek clear title there was a when you judgment obtained in the foreclosure action so we're still working on a note when you see filed the foreclosure action they waive the defense of rescue to come because there is a money judgment and foreclosure there's a deficiency obtained is the property has no soul and it's being pursued through foreclosure  mortgage to pursue the deficiency of monetary judgment or anything within the context of the foreclosure case it's not even contemplated underachiever and to do so at a minimum would waive foreclosure action be reversed ressam that that be reversed and that the counterclaim be allowed to proceed within the context foreclosure action there is still a collection pursuit within the context of the foreclosure  any money there is no financial issue with regard to mortgage we can all agree that the note is what gives rise to a financial obligation the note is what gives rise to a deficiency and the no identifies the  sensually waived any right to rescue the cattle they're bringing the note of them up themselves if they were bring up an old themselves and they can obtain them the financial judgment which was included in the foreclosure judge so based upon those issues i think the trial court i think churchill believed that what she was doing  correct when she identified and bought the motion vacate had been denied and that was a final judgment or believe our version correct for the for the two reasons first of all we don't we still don't believe that there is a final judgment were the the procedural history indicates that of course the defendants exercise their rights under rule two seventy six to file a motions to vacate had bed the night by the trial court the only action still pending and the trial court of course were supplementary actions to and force the judge to collect on the judge nother motion of money kate in the case filed on december eleventh two thousand and nine is a prohibited successive post judgment ocean and that is not permitted position of course is that that notice of appeal was also on time and this has to do with the issue of the defendant and the defendants had an obligation to appeal timely basis they did not appeal that particular order on a timely basis over thirty days commands over thirty days went by before they filed their notice of appeal where they are seeking to reverse judge hill's ruling on the order dismissing the counterpoint instead of defendants filed their notice of appeal what part of the supreme court rules supports your claim well the we believe that supreme court rule three or three forcing the rules and the supreme court rules and particular he's law but we believe that courts this court's jurisdiction is that something to be taken lightly we believe that hor of the rules this is proper and i'm and so that the substance of their notice of appeal before into the march twenty sixth twenty ten order which really we believe that  in the c h case the court ruled that bad counterclaim was dismissed face forestry because i still have not seen anything from u c bank which states in any way that the a final an appealable order with the concept of the reservation of rights for the attorney fees and until they had it is not final and not appealed if it is the rule there is even as even possibly be an argument favor if you see bank on this issue would be to say for example in a in a state proceeding the award of attorney fees that issue can be appealed under certain circumstances without reservation or without resolution  bank does not whether or not the issues resolving the attorney for the issue will in any way be attacked is not cause for speculation the fact that it's not a final