they please the court i'm susan way bar the petitioner in this case and emira said and i am representing myself in this appeal although i was represented by petition to intervene a corporation by the responded trustee and three motions to sell property in the trust these are all at the heart of this appeal today the lower court within thirteen days in two separate rulings by cheer different judges granting the petition to intervene they ordered me to release the live lives pendens that were on the that was on the manufacturing property titled in nature house incorporated the first judge the second judge judge looked out state after only five days of being appointed she did not my house judgement motion she released the list tandems and and then we had a hearing after the date of the appeal of the motion to show cause and because i had to put in this appeal that we're hearing today it made i'm going to fox and there's going to be a finding yes but you are continuing it would be the purpose of having a rule to show cause hearing which was scheduled for the seventh and nature house and thus the removal of the list pending complaints in petitions and vote certain things that are not part of a motion for example a right to a jury trial receiving or motioning back to hearing on it eleven days later is vastly different than having a party follow complaint or petition against you are we entitled to some notice of the import of what they are claiming by naming it either a complaint or a petition or a counterpoint inside well first of all there were two motions to sell the property that were done with and one i believe it was in two weeks of each other first the trustee filed a motion to s all property owned by nature house i think it was february twenty eighth they like march twelfth or thirteen they find out that was when they filed their petition to intervene and five of the exact same motion to sell property owned by nature have now the law in this two weeks so we do what we were but i'm too vague but we were there was no no but the motion to the motion by us to sell the power to release the list and that was all the property to sell the property the released their motion to say off there was a we can't even say that his decision was contrary to the evidence because there was no evidence at all present impossible for me to go back and figure out why judge mays did what he did the reason may be brazen that she could not get into his head and figure out why he had ruled the way he day she was appointed and setting her documents to review without them being provided to the petitioner and to this day we have no idea what those documents were that she reviewed before she made her ruling on april fifth the recording of the this pendants wasn't was not done with any malice judge mays ruled on their very first motion of july of two thousand and nine they moved to sell all the property owned by nature house the trustee moot and it was big and the judge d motion at that time and he said that if at a later time they did want to say how i think they would have to do something to answer my injunction protection before being able manufacturing property i had already filed the list and on their own by nature house the trustee did not want it they said if the trial court told the trustee if you are approved well within the confines of a probate proceeding yes you're going to have to do more right and you're on  and my well and trust contest which is the basis for my injunction petition to keep all of this property that my father own from being so if i they would not go forward because they could not get clear title to the property being the perspective buyer that's correct that's correct and that's the fish that's the big fish big river fish pendants as i say i only did it to her the judge ruled judge mays ruled that that denied their first motion to sell and i wanted to protect this pretty as so we had we might have turney did that at the time be and at the moment that we were thinking about well what difference did it may if they were a party or not because oppose those lists and which were all the nature of house property in two thousand and not so here now to almost two years later they're coming back and nature house property they do it in two thousand and nine i when it was on the on nature house property  thousand and seven we have as mrs par said there's three pieces of property there's the perry springs property the weight marsh property and the manufacturing facility the manufacturing facility list pendens was filed on december twenty three two thousand and nine some two years after she found her michelin junction titian and two spends on these property i do not dispute at all in this bar that she filed those two this pendant on the original piece of property with her injunction addition the problem is for this pending statute to buy three things are required and the third one is what i'm going to focus on and that is the property involved must be sufficiently described in the please but miss part of it was she went to the reporters office talking to you about is why didn't somebody intervene and inject an objection in july of two thousand and nine at a hearing that the trustee had you can object to something that hasn't occurred yet she had a file that was pens notice the first time major house of the list then and notice is a final order or final resolution of the rights of part it is our position in the brief that's under oath three zero four it i not and we make an argument that there is not jurisdiction here for this appeal because that that order did not finally determine the right being a practical sort and not wanting this litigation to go on any longer than it already has i'm going to ask you to go outside record tell me whether anything has been so and i'm i'm going to ask you regarding the future until the will and trust contest are resolved is anything going to happen or is everything i think yes i think so because that would finally determine h or houses right as to piece of property that could be disposed of in that trust just because they are not a party now to the interest contest from your perspective is while these have different case numbers do you think that nature hasn't motion intervened simply makes them a party in this manufacturing facility i can't do that now they can say well they saw how the manufacturing business that is true but i  father's work was in conservation three years my husband and i my father expected us to come home and continue his work including his conservation work your state when you mean this isn't one of the things that was named in the original petition for injunction no i did and i want to and i'll be quite honest with the court when i found that in just simply after the  that time the manufacturing business had just been sold six months before he died i didn't i know i was thinking about why we were going to my husband and i were going to do at that moment in time i realized that the manufacturing business would provide the basis for volume the income which is what it did for my father to do the that i can't i can't go there with my father's wishes and his nineteen nice things trust in that manufacturing facility itself so what i'm asking this court to do is to look at members of the board of directors they had to agree on everything and i mean till the first trustee took over that was the way it still was i was on the board with my father everything that we did during the nine hundred sevent