eliminate back up this this whole thing started when four members of a board of eight decided that they wanted to have the complaint filed by trolls while that he was representing the association basically they were just four members of any number who are who kept saying mr o'donnell to the court judge brandt decided that well this is not going to work because obviously mile from whatever their time is right for the case was dismissed with prejudice there was a stipulation prepared by the defendant's counsel that said well we want to discharge the provisional directors court erred when it decided these were costs that could be assessed is the number one when you look at the causal connection here these directors were assigned so that this homeowners board  if you look at the cost definition costs are reimbursed the prevailing party for expenses necessarily incurred in  well i think i think there's two levels here one the board had to act but two is a cost of litigation it is there's no evidence that newman off or fuller participated the litigation other than maybe they read the briefs and said fine we'll agree to hire an attorney and it i guess i draw the distinction between hiring an attorney to go assert rights versus actual costs for serving those rights and i think that's the distinction here that simply voting to say well we're going to hire counsel and send you to core is different than what counsel spends on what is expended on behalf of the prosecution and i think that's the distinction here that they had nothing to do with the prosecution of the case at least according to the record other than saying fine we'll break the tie or mall agree to hire counsel but i think that's different than saying well i i had expert fees i had deposition fees i have service fees i had some cost in pursuing the litigation this is simply can you go to go get an attorney and that's all  us i don't think it's it's not i don't i don't think it's connected because if it wasn't none of these fees were expended in assertion of the actual rights in the court and simply we want to we signed the dismissal approaches we're going to come back after the case is dismissed and then say well we want those costs back we want the fees of the provisional directors and i don't think the court can say that they didn't waive should be a staff from asserting that after they sign a stipulation saying we're going to pay that never could have been taken care of before the case was dismissed with prejudice and might might not have been dismissed with prejudice if they would have raised it and said well you know we're signing the stipulation we want to reserve the right to come back and say we want to collect this from the plaintiff something that wasn't done the stipulation in this was all were done on the same day signed by both counsel with respect to the cells it's an interesting issue about the review i think case that i cited in my brief this court has to look at whether or not this is a category cost that can be considered a you've got an order that says you're going to appoint provisional directors full bore that those are court costs and i think this this court needs to say there is no precedent for it there's no reason  again it doesn't fit the definition of court costs because it wasn't an expense that was incurred in the court in assertion of the rights in the court it was simply a vehicle to get you've got an injunction there are two things you need to satisfy one you've got to show that there was a wrongful issuance of the injunction into the statute requires that you file for damages such as attorneys fees after the dissolution of the plymouth junction material and before the case is finally disposed of neither of these requirements were met in the underlying case  in this case there was a stipulation to dismiss signed by both parties with prejudice after that there was a claim that well we want to come back and claim attorney's fees  and he kept getting is a very strict three separate plan so the court should not be bound by some board who convenes after the case is over after dismissed with prejudice there's evidence that they said over who will agree that all mr downer's fees should have been paid by the association and we agree that they should be paid for the duration case i don't think that's binding on those who are if mr o'donnell was not properly before the court i don't think some homeowners or not is convened after the case is over that says well we agree all these fee should be paid and we want the paid that's not mine on this court and in judge brandt should have know there were there was no the on the back of the provisional directors never voted to say look we want to go collect attorney's fees because we think the injunction was how proud they were discharged the case was dismissed me i think there are other reasons that that should be affirmed most of which is that the the attorney's fees were incurred by mr o'donnell when he was not properly retained and i don't know how you look back and say w i'm not so sure because if if the board can't vote to say we want to avoid all that i guess the board doesn't have to have the votes or doesn't believe that well we  have we have the will to fight this case no we don't have enough votes to fight this case because maybe it was correct as judge brinn said i didn't find that this was i'm probably wrong and if it's not improperly were not a majority but they elected to spend the money so i guess equitably you'd say well why would the plaintiff have to pay for these guys who don't have any of the money who want to hire attorneys want to run up the fees and up the ballots were intended to been opened in early june and all dealt with the mill out in early may that being said there were only two meetings of this board i don't believe there's any indication three days before are furious and number fourteen when i understood notice for september fourteenth actually september thirteenth somehow the laying this action we're taking improper action by striking here if you look at the record you know and i think mr rock said this to you in your brand one of the hearings is the problem with four directors sending the jury to court is how how do they speak for the defense that's that's the real problem here that's why his stricken was because he doesn't speak for the ball he's got four members on the board and so does he speak for those four members or does he speak for the homeowners association he can't speak for the defendant because he's been given no direction by the jury who are there to send him out that's that's what i think the court needs to drill down to that that it's not a litigation tactic to say you can't come in here in less so much just the attorney but how do you speak for the corporation if you're not on the jury how can you say i want to fight this thing that says the election procedures are bad and they're not we agree how can four members of the board decide t exactly the opposite and without a finding that was wrongfully injured there can't be again and judge brinn again both sides in the briefs and you know this made references to there were hearings that were never recorded and motions were never so we're all in the dark about what went on but again judge grant specifically said i don't find  defendant shows that it's more probably true the not true that this was improperly entered in without that finding i think mary matalin on the other cases say there's no recovery of attorneys and again it would go back today we will take this matter under the board including the two provisional directors expeditiously and get rid of this case before cost associated any more money that being said what caused these costs to be incurred for the provisional directors was the