disputed by the defendants from the inception of this case when this case went all the way through and went to trial no further evidence was produced no additional information was provided not only what had been provided by the defendants at the inception of the case when they filed their initial motion to dismiss the plaintiffs made allegations that were monreal modifications were made to the phrasing used in the allegations in the complaint which i would submit to this court were materially interact and they were misleading documentation attached to our motion to this minutes it demonstrated that there was no attorney involved in the transaction that the attorney hadn't had disclosed the charms of the transaction in charge of the amount of the purchase price nancy radley in which she set forth all the details of the transaction all that was submitted again at the very inception of the case they found the complaint and february of two thousand and thirteen that allegation is not strictly accurate and in his affirmatively misleading it ignores the expressed disclosure contained in attorney white's letter of december of two thousand that that language is not accurate when the court was ruling on these motions and that when referring specifically to the motion for sanctions as well as our motion for a directive on the court and we had to investigate and garner evidence and present evidence that in fact that disclosure letter was received and the consensus was sent in response to that disclosure  evidence that there are allegations in their initial complaint that they never consented to a single hour of the property of the office parcel property owned by military the m the distribution that was being made in terms of how much should be paid to marilyn and the checks that totaled that this wasn't flushed out at trial before a judge chars who was is a floating judge and had not but in any case the  this this center circumstances ultimately led the plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss their claims with respect to rally farms and the p denying sanctions and i believe that's a against manifest weight of the evidence we certainly submitted only documentation the discovery deposition in maryland and o'donnell  the documentation that was attached to that deposition which was what i referred to earlier checks resolutions that etc etc that that she acknowledged having received something negotiated in her discovery the court held that sanctions were not appropriate with respect to the man they complained the second amended complaint and everything else that occurred because there was a genuine issue of material fact that  false and they had no legal basis from the inception lawsuit google and there was no evidence of damages period and in fact if you if you look at the trial testimony of the attorney who  councils attempts to submit her own calculations of g m inches in motion for summary judgment i i frankly could not quite follow what the basis was but it is not objectively reasonable for an attorney to attempts to provide evidence in the fall on their own in testimony as to what damages are that is that goes beyond the their realm of what any misrepresentation of fact the elements are fairly basic but i would submit that the quotes misapplication of the standard for materiality in the context of a breach of contract action pathway that mr right that the court and it did not ultimately lead the court to engage and what i would consider to be the appropriate analysis based on the law material a lot of the language and case law with respect to material breach is a material misrepresentation appear similar but when you drill down on material misrepresentation you look at what is that misrepresentation of fact and there are stubborn elements that are involved was a misrepresentation of a material fact that wasn't factual in nature and because the court analyzed the case in the context of a material breach of contract when that wasn't really the issue that was involved the court didn't really analyze whether or not the statement contained and mr white's disclosure l and december of two thousand and eight that the role he's proposed to purchase excuse me yes the bradleys proposed to purchase the property for two hundred thirty five thousand dollars using more and therefore the court if a employed the proper standard would have been able to all determine that there was no material misrepresentation that had been made there's some other ind testimony of william o'donnell when we brought it to thirty seven notice for mr donohue o'donnell to appear at trial we've heard for the first time that he couldn't appear at trial they moved they brought a motion seeking to excuse and the court ultimately ruled that we were entitle to take a videotape evidence that position and due to circumstances surrounding prior costs that were on tape by the plant it for travel to take their discovery that positions the court even ordered that they were to pre pay all those costs but the only sure of that is if you look at the deposition testimony of william o'donnell it don't support their case he undermined their case raised in both of our motions to to dismiss and in our response a motion for summary judgment were the same reasons that there was a directed verdict and under these facts and circumstances come counsel claiming that that the objective standard is whether or not the plaintiffs can remember i would submit that that is certainly not an objective standard that is a subjective standard based upon these they had that the terms of been disclosed it happened just a few years prior and the letter that was sent to mr dixon three weeks prior to the filing of the complaint asking for generally for information regarding the operation of the farm over the last few years certainly was not a request for an accounting it was not a requests for specific documents and nothing contained in that letter giving any notice that this was all coming down the pike and here we are years later and still arguing about all this when in fact from the very beginning from one month or two months after they filed their complaint they had all the evidence that there ever was of the plaintiffs is important in this case and the trial court was correct to take that into effect into account he can't analyze an objective standard in a vacuum you have to review everything that happened in the case that your standard of review of here from the very beginning that was not in our possession in my possession prior to the time the original complaint was filed and it's important in this case to make a distinction because that the defendant discloses that here are the terms that generally we may be using for the sale that on the monetary term was disclosed and that they may be using a twenty year no the consent signed by the client only indicating consent to the amount of the sale and they have disputed throughout the case that they were aware that the that he note was ultimately taken over a thirty year mortgage there in the damages are that horse money now is  florida for a very long time prior to the time they could be medication arose and did not have access to all of the records in the possession that raleigh's should say that the feed additional claims and the second demanding complaint over the first amount of complaint were the claims against rally farms and those were ultimately voluntarily dismiss under section two dash one o court gave us to do the sole manager of the company and there's a tie in at which we directed our allegation and most of our allegations for example the court correctly found that when  engages in india where he transfers companies when he purchases for himself and for his spouse that self healing and there have to be adequate disclosures to the other members of the company about the nature of the transaction to correct the full nature of the transaction should be disclosed to the plate this there's no doubt that no one ever mentioned a thirty year no term to my clients there's also no doubt that the consent form does not include a consent to that to a note at those with the facts that were required to be tried by the judge and upon hearing the evidence he made a sham nation based on the facts and the law that the difference between that they the difference between a twenty year now and a thirty year no not material to th possession my client testified a child that she received income taxes but did not otherwise receive receive regular supporting documents while i recognize that demand is often required with an accounting it is not always required would have been futile given the nature of the relationship between the parties and yet given the nature of the relationship between the parties the other claims were or  court correctly found that that there was no evidence that their intent in this lawsuit was simply to harass and it those are important facts analyzed particularly given  guess there is certainly a distinction between zero wife but the plaintiffs knew or were able to remember and the assistance they were able to provide counsel and information and information provided to counsel and address of the second is whether there was a failure to investigate the claims prior to the time the various various pleading that again each time the defendants produce documents that were relevant to our case which meet we as counsel indicated we initially sends a letter to defendant's counsel stating that we'd like to investigate the ownership of the had documentation relating to the can sap of a sale over the course that contrary to what defendant's counsel said at the beginning there was not there were not documents in his action of plaintiffs from the absolute beginning in this case documents were provided over the course of discovery there were some delays in producing documents so as is often the case during discovery of the case we have monitor our complaint to conform to the information that became available from the defendants when we received it certainly it would have helped certainly having certain documents having the facts on the grassy of various leaves in these we certainly try to inform o pleadings to those documentations that the facts and circumstances and the ability of play dates to assist counsel and informing their pleadings is very relevant in this case they resid in florida provided certain documents discuss those documents with clients and indeed we could to investigate the claims and i think based on the objective really reason most in or on the facts and circumstances of the keys it's not appropriate to find that we've failed to investigate it based upon that based upon his finding on it he did read he determined to that sanctions were appropriate for the original complaint only that he analyzed the bills and records cemented by the defendants and determine that their records do not support the total amount they were seeking there and that there were deficiencies in their billing records which is part of the reason he he awarded the amount that he did it is record obviously add to the extent that defendants are now requesting all of their attorneys fees to be aware that all of the billing records are an issue because i don't believe they support the request for the defendant's requests for sanctions in perth where they're requesting sanctions related to various claims there's different defendants and i would assume lower now i would i would assume lower this case from the beginning has been a case where the facts that were pleaded didn't rise to the level of stating a cause of action in most cases for a breach of you shared responsibility there number miss impressions that may have been created by counsel's argument that i want to address those she stated that the white letter of december eleventh the hobby of the memorandum approving either hidden this from their own consul or their own council heads the now that makes the matter all the more egregious the players were all at the time i believe that testimony that he had contradicted all the allegations of the complaint and what his wife would say moral over he  his health may have been bad he had a friend this weight problem but his recollection was clear it's difficult for me to understand how this could have been brought to you had it been conversation between mr o and in result the dismissal of the corporation only came after the defendants filed a motion for sanctions it didn't come after the deposition and it didn't come anywhere else essentially this case has been a case where it's been the defense defendants at that point and of course we have to include them in our response to requests to produce these out of facts with evidence to income and trial so that has no relation to whether or not my clients had those documents in their possession and before the original or