contribution claim to the plant to the plaintiff references that the plates of sustained at least one million six hundred thousand dollars in damages only a fraction of which was paid in settlements it expressly allows for spring supreme court entered a good faith finding the settlements there was absolutely nothing during the proceeding that was put in the record regarding the new source liability there was nothing put in the record as to the value of the assignments or the appropriateness of the settlement amount we brought this appeal to our contention that the good faith finding was entered into in error as a matter of law there are cases number a number of cases that we've cited in our three that provide that a settlement which is a settlement is not in good faith if it conflicts with the provisions of the contribution act or is inconsistent with the public policies promoted by the there is a settlement was liability is extinguished by the same settlement it has to be by the same settlement agreement here it was not in fact in contravention of the end not only was to backslide ability not extinguished by the settlement agreement but shortly after the settlement agreement was entered into springbrook then brought a direct claim directly against to boston for in addition  contribution is limited to the amount paid by the settling tortfeasor in excess of this progress or share so it best for the plaintiff the contribution claim is capped by the settlement amount here the settlement agreement greements such as this which would allow for a windfall money an excess of the settlement amount defeats the act purpose of equitably distributing the burden of compensating plaintiff among the joint tortfeasor and is therefore not entitled to a good faith and also of the settlement agreement here is problematic based on the rationale of the supreme court in the cloudy decision there is no evidence here at all rationale for the amount paid was just that that was the limit of the remaining insurance and had nothing to do with case the value of the case again the cases are clear that it's their burden to show the settlement amount was within the reasonable range of the settling parties fair share of liability and nothing was introduced on that point the agreement is also silent on settlement agreements also silent on allowing any type of set  case have to disappear was filed the plaintiff has introduced an amendment to the settlement agreement that amendment was not before the court at the time the good faith finding was sent into and the good faith binding on the current so how is there a controversy for this court to decide i mean there was no stay request i my claim is not a party to the set of whether the two parties case by virtue of the payment it wasn't my bird at least i don't believe it was my burden to seek a stay and try to interfere with their contract my understanding of the appropriate course for my client is to oppose the assignment the fact that the settlement proceeds have been paid already and the settlement agreement has been reformed so i'm not sure that they're the assignment hasn't been vacated as part of that settlement and the reform settlement agreement the only thing that was reformed by virtue of the amendment was that there was a release by spring gro i have not had the opportunity to argue before the circuit court because they have not moved for a good faith finding and that amended settlement agreement that as an example that amendment was entered into without consideration i don't believe though there's any advisory opinion that the only way that a contribution claim can be assigned in springbrook in procedures under the contribution that in order for that to happen there has to be a good faith the only thing that's before this court the amendment was not part of the record on appeal because it didn't happen until well after we filed our briefs in this matter least well after our original request but i don't think that that makes that moved or that there's nothing that this court can decide to get at this court were to determine that the settlement agreement contravenes the contribution act and is therefore as a matter of law not in good   has been reformed you're telling me that the part regarding the assignment has not changed and so it has been changed or has been changed  then the case would be correct i don't believe so because they are still be spring we're just still operating based on the good faith binding that involves the settlement agreement before this panel again though the only thing that was being was there in them was an amendment to the settlement agreement releasing soup but we certainly believe that that's problematic that the case was clear that the release has to be in the same settlement agreement and this amendment makes it a new agreement they didn't characterize of the reformation they amended so we shouldn't wait until the trial co has made that good faith determination in the new r reformed settlement agreement before we proceed with the appeal that would be my position but more importantly raise an objection to good faith finding again in the settlement agreement i'm not a party to this court were to do nothing in one way they could force me to trial in the underlying matter never asked for a good honor there outside the record there was a motion for a good faith grindin that was entered into our year before the amendment was even created and then there was a motion by the newco for three or four  underlying matter and i thought they mentioned the amended settlement agreement ok so but but regarding rightness we still have a violation of the contribution act according to your brief correct well the contribution next promote settlement but the seventy seven wing party should be totally discharged from liability correct as well as the party that as well as my client because contribution is from michael so they want all right because they want to sue my client for contribution which is what they're doing right now you know they had to release my client in the same settlement agreement which was the one in which the court and to the good faith finding and they didn't and there they're truly clearly trying to circumvent by the settlement agreement to all the purposes of the again they're not trying to limit the recoveries to the amount paid by canoe go in excess of this pro rata share and as i said before you know not only that but they then brought a direct claim against my client and write in the full and there's nowhere in the settlement agreement that it would reduce or set off from there is nothing in there that says that and in that i believe it's paragraph six specifically says that the places reserved the right to seek and it's a capital d damages and damages is a defined term and it's the full one million six  no i think that it is the that the way the case law works is the proponents additional burden to show to make a preliminary showing of good they that the circuit court has some pretty wide discretion as far as what they want to do with it they want to have an evidentiary hearing or they don't and then the circuit court can make the finding the difference is that in this case i don't think of finding a liability is have no for the question thank you for thank you thank you just just so i have couple of questions in light of the fact that the trial court has not made a finding of common liability isn't it speculative on your part that konopka has not paid more than its program to share for the through the settlement agreement i trial i think that the agreement relative to that author i think that the agreement doesn't reflect any of the seven but i think if your honor had the appeal is clearly right for the other you know the simple one being the violation of the settlement agreement when we do yes they are fine they continue to pursue a contribution which they can but isn't it true by not granting the right to the set off for limiting the amount that springbrook could recover from to back and this settlement agreement doesn't doesn't this convert this contribution claim into a direct cause of action against so you believe it's in your client's interest to prevent any contribution whatsoever i think back here because of this alleged violation of  i would have the right i have one subsequent question i hate to keep beating a dead horse but what is the proper practising man for the court to make a good faith finding on the amended agreement  i'll begin where mr brony began which is the principal argument that's been raised on appeal namely that the settlement violated section two e of the contribution act in that it did not include in its terms a release of the accounts when this case settled between springbrook in kanuga and twenty one thousand in a settlement agreement was submitted to the trial court for good faith finding the settlement did not provide for a release of brock from any direct action for one simple reason because there was and is no direct right of action for springbrook to release as to sube mr sumach and his law firm were made parties in this case by virtue of the rd party contribution action that kanuga filed against suit springbrook contends that since there were no direct actions as to springbrook against sumach there was affectively nothing to release in the settlement agreement but in light of superbikes jackson and those trial courts finding kanuga and springbrook reform to the settlement agreement to include a release that they still consider a military but a release they were always willing to give in order to obtain finality in the settlement which the trial court accepted now that the release that appellant's are you should have been included in the settlement agreement has been given in favor of suicide by way of reformation and the trial court has accepted it their argument regarding violation of section two e is effectively mood so an alternative argument has been offered that the reformed agreement is objectionable because no additional consideration was given  but that is the crux of the problem with the release in the st place it was not given for any consideration it is in essence a looser e because the parties to contract always understood there was nothing to give and nothing to get in terms of release in terms of release of for direct action nevertheless they wished for finale in their settlement and so went ahead and provided the release in reformation the further inference to be drawn on the point of consideration is that aside from the gratuitous benefit obtained by sue back and being released from any direct claim appellants provide the score with nothing by way of authority to support their position about objecting to a settlement as a nonparty on the basis of formation of contract apple e's argue that such an objection is an impermissible attempt to interfere with their freedom of contract and while failure of consideration is a means by which a party to a contract may have void performance it is not a means by which  nonparty may collaterally attack the legal operation of agreement put another way the appellant's here lack standing to object to the settlement on the basis of failure of consideration the settlement agreement with its included reform provision providing for release the and accepted by the trial court serves to nullify a balance argument as it pertains to any purported violation of section two weeks of the settlement of the can contribution as things now stand with the trial co the parties awaited trial on the question of common liability in pro rata share which brings me to the balance of the principles argued by the appellants but before i do that i might also point out to the court that unlike the cases upon that the provisions of the contribution act which pertain to pro rata share have not been satisfied the problem is that the trial court has yet to make any of these determinations there has been no trial on the merits in contrast to guerrero and others where the appellate courts were furnished a record of both the common liability that it had been determined and also the pro rata share of the various liable defendants it counts as this court to determine as a matter of law that any settlement  parameters in order to be accepted on a good faith basis but as we should all well understand settlement agreements may signify agreement as to disputed issues of fact but settlement agreements do not supplant the tr contribution appellants in their brief cite to cases relating to a different procedural posture than the instant one in which a determination has to pro rata share was reached by the trier of fact before coming up on appeal here the appellant's ask this court to dismiss them before any determination has the common liability and pro rata share has been made and just so the record is clear pointing to a settlement that appellant's characterize in their brief is just twenty two percent of common liability is unhelpful because it cannot be accepted as appellant urge as a computation as the pro rata share even where parties might stipulate to the total amount of claim damages seem to argue in this case that stimulus stipulation is not determine it to say otherwise would deprive appellants of their right to test the evidence and make their arguments at trial as we pointed out in our brief the twenty two percent is nothing more than what remained under a declining limits policy the camera coverage limit of which was always less than one rd of the total claim damages the amount of the settlement with canoe go only represents what that declining limits policy the actual damages of this legal malpractise case however have yet to be determined by the trier of fact and the pro r determination likewise has not been determined because of this pointing to sections to be in to see is basis for a dismissal of suit or reversal of a settlement would in itself constitute their finally i'd like to point out one last thing concerning waiver this is a settlement that as i noted earlier involved a declining limits policy and nearly a rd of the policy limit was a road by attorneys fees before a single deposition was even take illinois public policy favors settlement outside of court and the contribution acts at aspies and other policy objective of equitable sharing of damages but the amount of a settlement was approved by the trial court and that amount has been paid and distributed all in failing to seek the correct remedy from the trial court in failing to ask the trial court to stay the distribution of the settlement proceeds or escrow them or a determination on appeal before allowing distribution of talents of arguably weight those potential remedies and instead secret in this court a dismissal of subiaco or to extinguish the contribution claim direct claim is that correct it included a both parties released from direct action and reserved only the contribution portion claim there was never a directive to begin with your honor that we could not well bring both never brought well maybe i misheard opposing counsel but i thought that during his arguments he indicated that there still was open the possibility of a direct claim against his client a direct claim being brought to justice not under the reform and agreement and not of not based upon what the trial court has done that there an amended pleading that was filed that the count that related to a direct action has been withdrawn and it's now what remains is the contribution action that was  contribution of the limits the recovery that can be had as to sue bach to the pro rata share of what exceeds the pro rata share of  thankfully it was something that pointed out that the the parties didn't contemplate having to do because there was nothing actually to release but to bring it into compliance with with section two we they did the court's justification i'm having a problem fighting for support justification for finding that take well i couldn't answer that your honor but i suspect that the court was persuaded with the party's representation that since there was no direct action to release in the st place there was no need for it in the original agreement if that if that was the thinking then that would explain why the court reconsidered and allowed the reformation right did you raise the jurisdiction issue on this case at st well you know perhaps it was in artful but our our primary argument in this appeal we have brought a couple of motions prior  argument was the things that remain besides the section two issue which we think it's been corrected with the reformation the things that were going are are premature that they have not that they relate to their determinations by the tr bring the appeal i understand but i think that the thing that was really available for us to go back to argue on appeal has been mooted by by the reformation by the subsequent reformation  no question that the burden of no good faith is upon the party challenging the settlement i think that's the correct approach yes i think that's what the case sources so you're  settlement i would die i don't know how we want to categorize it but that certainly was in conflict with the terms of the contribution act you don't deny that because then you went forward and you amended it well again we we agreed to something new this was simply to canuto always desired finality and that's part of the reason why the for the three or four so adding the term that provides the released that was not a by anyone well you must there thought of a some what of a contribution act because there was a good faith finding right so so assignment of the contribution actions but no direct action to release so that's the that's the distinction that what does the court need to rely to rule on liability in other matters in the case before making a good faith finding possibly i don't you know meant might have made this a lot cleaner because right now we have what amount well i asked i asked mr verrone and men to ask you can we are would it be proper for us to remand this case for the court to make a good faith finding with respect to the subsequent agreement and what that  all of these matters and not happened piecemeal well possibly your honor but you you understand that i also am you know canuto is one of the apple e's in this case and canuto definitely has expressed that it wishes to be finally out so i mean  i i you know i don't want to be taken for having agreed but if you're if you're asking about options that's one of the how how can you argue it reflects a reasonable allocation of fall well your honor respectfully i don't think it i mean if the allocation has not been made the agreement was that the agreement had still out there to for determination it's not something that could have been could have been resolved and even if it were result between the parties it's not as though there should be any assumption that  ok account so you argue your breach that if this court were to find that the settlement agreement was not made in good faith this court would and somehow deprive springbrook of its full negotiated consideration should we do just that that the contribution has been violated what i would say was that the settlement was was drafted in a way that possibly didn't supply all of the terms to satisfy the contribution or because they were not contemplated as  there is no there was no understanding of the direct right of that but as it is he no i don't counsel it was your client's request for the trial court to enter the t for order yet on appeal you argued that the traffic court erred in making this finding why shouldn't this argument be considered wave in light of the rule i'm invited error well no reason for release who but is directly reseated by the fact that this case within a month of this settlement the good faith finding springbrook asked the court for leave to amend its complaint and in fact he added a direct action again to but that was always the plan with respect to the settlement they were going to proceed with a direct action against to back  heard and after a subsequent motion for summary judgment that that direct claim was draft was dropped i also know that everything that they're relying on in this deal is not before this court and is not of the rock what's of record is a good thing it's fun that was entered into based on the settlement agreement that was not amend and everything they're arguing occurred well after this appeal was taken in fact it not in the agreement their argument is directly contrary to the euro decision and all the cases cited there in in career oh they made that the defendant made the same argument they said that we did but they release the non settling court fees are in the exact same agreement and they didn't do that timeframe they decided to pay the money out under the settlement any so that's not my client's obligation to seek to stay payment under their settlement the common liability in court clearly contravenes the contribution at the numerous respects therefore they were not titled as a matter of law to the to find right now they're proceeding against my client on a that something that they have asked the court to do and i get to raise the arguments that we have finally was asked what was the judge's risk now in deciding the good faith finding the specifically set forth and i have no further questions either the court thanks both parties for your argument this morning the case will be taken under advisement and a disposition will be rendered  due course mr clerk you may close the case and terminate the proceedings thank you