record in this case and rd the is the appellant general issue that the summary judgment standard was applied improperly in the district court the court necessarily engaged in determining credibility in weighing evidence in order to make it finding that there had been no misrepresentation of coersion and that they are contracted and properly formed and should be enforceable so with respect to that in the st issue the  d and it misnamed this court but it did clearly indicate particularly with reference to the peripheral considerations that this court has found appropriate in the past it clearly indicated the intent  one from which the appeal was taken was an order that did two things it was one order that the not the plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the earlier partial summary judgment order and it also completed the summary judgment by awarding monetary damages so and when an appeal is taken from the final judgment in a case which this effectively was because there was there was only an interlocutory ruling until this this final ruling when an appeal is taken from a final judgment in a case it is considered to have this court has held that it is considered to be an appeal from all of the orders that led up to prior rulings that led up to that final judgment over the judgment and the and you know an appeal from the judgment so i we do have jurisdiction over something called final order so i'm wondering if that's not a way of getting your case before the court this case the nominated judgment was the clerk's judgment which wasn't signed by the district court it's signed electronically by the by a deputy clerk as i recall so so i i thought it was fair to consider that final ruling to be the district court's final judgment but but i certainly would would contend that the that that order that from which the appeal that was designated in the notice of appeal was an order the notion that this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from that order i would stress that the order was the court included the court's ruling on the grant of summary judgment which was which was only interlocutory at that time and i wouldn't put all of my reliance on the statement of issues i thought that statement of issues was relevant i if the court may recall d and if i have time i'll get to this and now that it's the opponent's position that rule three formal requirements are not indulgent of an end or call notice of appeal as long as the intent of the opponent is cool they are and as long as there hasn't been any prejudice to the to the appalachians and i think in this case when you look at the procedural history of the case  what else are these guys appealing they they didn't even respond to the matter that was actually adjudicated in that final order which was the claim for attorney's fees they only responded about the grant of s that initial partial grantor summary judgment so their intent i don't think anybody could argue their intent was to was to appeal from the award of attorney's fees their intent was a bit was to appeal from the grant a summary judgment procedural history made that clear to the extent that the court's willing to consider the statement of issues made it clear and the statement of issues was not objected to which suggests the waiver unless of course the court's not going to consider the statement of issues at all so that that's that that is my argument why i can't deny the existence of the cases the court has cited but i think the principles that that that ought to control this are the principle that a it's not  be the court has a policy of liberal interpretation and and see that the at the intent is clear here and there isn't there hasn't been any prejudice even suggested to the apple a they didn't have any trouble figuring out what it was that needed to be responded to in their brief that they just took issue with whether they ought to have to do it i'm getting i'm running low on time so the the defense of an unconscio body the basically one can read the the answer files by the opponents to the to the to the wyndham's counterclaim is as a as some sort of a counter claim which of course it could not be it was an answer so it asserted and of affirmative defense it was based on the sales tactics and the notion that the plaintiff should no longer be bound by the conned by the contract that they had signed and the record summarized to get in the reply brief this was a years long sales tactic a process that is engaged in i'm not going to talk about the industry in general just talk about the record in this case vacation is you don't have enough points of life the more they get tricked into those meetings they got tricked at those meetings they were shown accommodations that were better than the accommodations that they had centrally received they were told their maintenance fees which are a significant part of the ongoing costs that go that goes on for the rest of their lives would increase only minimally when in fact they crease substantially they were misrepresentations about the ability to rent your points that's present in this case your honor i agree with it can be hard to swallow hard to figure out why does it take that much time to complain but given the facts of this case i would say that a jury question contract is unconscionable is a question of law for the court to decide but there are that depends on issues of fact and i think those issues a fact should not have been determined in summary judgment in this case given the substantial evidence that exactly that happened that there was over going they they weren't deprived of the ability to enjoy their vacation they enjoyed being on vacation with each other that does not mean that they were not subjected to  claim before the court well i think that that's a that's a fair at least a fair question because d it was because it reads like a counterclaim but but all of the element that what what unconscio is with respect to a contract under missouri law is that the earmarks of it are exactly what happened in this case they are coercive tactics misrepresentations in the high pressure sales pitches that is there in their memo they talked about they shouldn't be held and they shouldn't be held to this contract because there will because of the coercion and the misrepresentations and i think they had their defense properly before the district court i am out of specific as this court has noted it appealed the order granting monetary damages entered in this action on the st day of april two thousand and twenty that is extremely specific and the owing intent that anyone can read from that is that they are appealing that particular order and no other there is no mention of the final judgment had it done so perhaps they could have swept up the summary judgment order on that final judgment they did not the only order they appeal from was the decision that occurred prior to that such as the dismissal of their complaint the remand complaint for failure to file it in a timely manner or the decision to dismiss almost all of the plaintiff for lack  be the last way that had to be done in the case right and so that's the final word and all those other orders be subsumed into that is my question and i don't believe it is it is clear that based on the law the order they neither one of those cases address rule three see under the appellate rules instead they address the bankruptcy code rules and the federal criminal rules are so procedure with respect to timeliness issues for a motion for new trial and a motion to object to discharge a debtor in bankruptcy they did not counsel under your view it's more than just the damages i know opposing counsel made the argument that that was all about damages the why would anyone appeal back but th something they get a feeling that and that you know find out where and that's the motive for reconsideration them ironic about that are my right you're exactly right your honor they did specifically in response to our motion for the award of specific monetary damages what they filed was a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order that was their response that was their opposition and because the summary judgment order was an interlock torrie order at that point their motion to  reconsider could be construed as a rule sixty d motion and under a sixty beat motion it was denied they did not offer any new evidence they didn't offer any new legal arguments that could have been applied when the summary judgment ruling was entered and therefore the court correctly dismissed that motion that can excuse me deny that motion to reconsider and so because of that this court standard of review for the april on two thousand and twenty decision is an abuse of discretion which is different from a review a summary judgment motion which is less of a hill to climb for the balance which is how wyndham is prejudice in this instance to be honest with you as well as the additional attorney's fees even curd in arguing these issues which could have easily been taken care of with a notice of appeal that comply with rule three c so yes you're exactly right if their response was really a motion to reconsider the summary judgment order and the court denied it that's what they appealed and so i issue however th circuit in in the automotive alignment and bike case took it one step further and said even if a rule three c is a claims processing rule in the under that the facts of that case that appellant give me the apple lease did not waive or forfeit the requirements of rule three c and so therefore we would also enforce rule three c and that's exactly what happened in this case if this court were to construe rule three c as a claims processing rule and not raised before a decision on the merits and in the briefing it is not waived and so we have not waived that this court the th circuit has ruled in dilbert's as general american life insurance company it's a two thousand eighty's cited in our brief five and twelve that if the claims processing rule is to be enforced by opposing counsel on the opposing party then the court is obligated obligated to enforce it so even if a rule three sees construed as a claims processing rule when that is raised the issue and said they didn't comply with rule three see in their notice of appeal therefore this court must enforce rule three see very quickly the designation of issues because that was raised in their reply brief i want to briefly mention that not only is the shell versus bloomberg case of clickable but it's also very similar to what what occurred previously when former local rule three b was in place under former local rule three b the court would not construe it and would not consider it that's exactly my analogy what's occurred here they filed their designation of issues fifty six days late this court issued a briefing schedule on april th asking for by may must be held to the rules and we have not waive those requirements i can now turn quickly to the orders that were entered the only order that was appealed from that april one thousand and twenty dollars order as i mentioned they did not specify any contrary evidence as to the amount of damages that she ordered all they simply did was ask the court to reconsider summary judgment they didn't provide any new legal arguments no new evidence therefore this court should affirm the district court's making their payment obligations pursuant to their contractual obligations when they filed their lawsuit in two thousand and eighteen and so consequently when them filed their counter breach contract windham asserted in its statement of fa the contractual terms as well as the deposition testimony of the appellant's in response to those statements of fact the appellant's simply responded and i quote admit they signed the document but deny the remainder of the allegation they did nothing to what they did however the appellant's filed their own statement of additional facts and what they did was parroted their affirmative defenses to rest and fraud in the inducement and cited the only deposition testimony that was taken in this case that was of the leaks and mr cole back and ms hartfield on addressed arrest st under missouri law dress requires the involuntary acceptance of terms under circumstances permitted that permitted no other alternatives  coercive acts of the other in other words the parties were prevented from exercising free will by threats or wrongful conduct of the other and those are cases cited in our response brief the affirmative defense of the rest whether it can apply or not is a legal question well that's the long marine case cited in our brief the district court ruled as a matter of water s was not available for the following reasons the deposition testimony of mr cole back and this hard feelings knowledge that they could always weave the sales presentations of windham presented they were always them offered an opportunity to ask questions in fact mr colbert testified that the last sales meeting he attended with wyndham he left and tore up the offered contract that is not to rest they had free will in addition they testified that they had entered into contracts previously and decided to rescind them under timeshare law they have depending on the state you purchased it in a certain number of days to rescind their agreement miss colback or she and mr cole back in this hard feel at three standard previous contracts the exercise that right based on those undisputed facts their own deposition testimony the district court ruled these were not oppressed people they had opportunities to leave they head off to his desk questions that had opportunities to rescind their contract which they had done in the past the stand goes for the leaks they've also acknowledged that they had opportunities ask questions they had opportunity to rescind their contracts which they did specifically in the past and they all fairly acknowledge that all of the facts asserted in their permanent offenses for duress arose from one meeting in two thousand and fifteen in branson missouri and in that meeting they entered into a contract but then subsequently within five days under missouri law rescinded their contract they got every penny back they were not damaged there was no the rest there with respect to that affirmative the those facts regarding the affirmative defense the league's also alleged they were tricked and that's a term that mr gross also used in two attending a meeting in two thousand and eighteen in tennessee the problem with that is there deposition testimony as alluded to in the in the record show that they didn't enter into a contract that they walked away so whatever exertion was influence over them it didn't cause them to enter into a contract based on that meeting and more importantly for the district court i believe as noted by this court it parties have been windham owners for years upon years they entered into these contracts and oftentimes increased their points by entering into new contracts and they used their contracts to use the last contract certainly that they all entered into the weeks that was two thousand and thirteen and for callback hartfield it was early two thousand and seventeen they enjoyed the benefits of these contracts  sorry my electricity just went out and you still hear me ok so so clearly because they used their contracts they ratified those contracts they cannot assert duress with respect to fraud in the induc address because my time's running out mr colback and miss hartfield at the end of the day and their deposition testimony said the reason why they wanted out of their contract was not based on any alleged misrepresentation it was because mr harper was experiencing a medical hardship and they couldn't travel anymore that had nothing to do with the alleged misrepresentations that occurred before they entered into any contract they also were afforded an opportunity to present evidence of this medical hardship to get them out of the contract and she testified that she received a letter saying they couldn't get out of the contract but if they provided additional evidence windham would consider it she never presented any additional evidence so the fraud in the inducement claim for the callbacks hartfield simply does not exist as a matter of walk not oppressed all of the allegations regarding the leaks they've been owners since two thousand and one they used their contract over and over never complained about the furnishings never complained about the reservation systems they as the court noted only for relief from a judgement or d an order that is final and the order that that from which the plaintiff were seeking relief was d an interlocutory order that was part of summary judgment so it was a what they appealed from and i certainly would say that that final ruling an appeal from that order which covered two things embrace the rulings that had led up to and under this accords doctrine