specifically that circumstance is that our g t brought a quiet title action to attempt to clear john karr as we know on the next into oil pipeline project and was the party for whom judgment was entered on that issue prescribed by this chapter and i stop there i'm sorry do you think that's a precondition to all the rest of it that it must be an action to enforce this kind of oil pipeline lee i believe that's what that says ok doesn't that kill you off the bat i disagree well but tell me why that is in the condition i know you disagree but tell me why that isn't a conditioned to all the rest of the statute that first of all the precondition to the application of this is it's got to be a lawsuit to enforce this lien correct you agree with it i do agree with that this lawsuit is not that kind of lawsuit in a declaratory judgment and ilene's not really being forced don't you have to enforce this by and this is this is where we've encountered our issue with the district court as well the word the word the statute uses is not foreclosed the word the statute uses is in force and in force is a broader term than foreclosure so rather than only permitting attorney's fees in a circumstance where the employment has chosen to foreclose the mean the statute permits any party for whom judgment is entered in any action to enforce the lien including  bring into compliance and wait what are you quoting for the definition of in force i believe it's black thought it's ok before you go there go to the north dakota this very statute ok you know it has the word inforce in two or three other sections here yes ok what do they you know the civil action the limitations one what does that tell us because it says a lean baby enforced by civil action two years were after a time and there's another place they say that a judgment is rendered in favor of any person to enforce a lien what do you what do you make of the use of the term in force and other sections of this very long i believe that unfortunately don't have those to specific sections right in front of me but i am it puts a deadline on the lien claimants trying to foreclose the lien that doesn't preclude another party you know whether it's the property holder another party responsible for clearing out liens on a project from also seeking to enforce the lien within that two year i believe that enforcement is a broader term in this section and i think that's true because you know these projects are very large they're very expensive they can tie up a lot of money when there's a lien on a project like th and there's no mechanism unlike the construction lien statute and north dakota there's no mechanism for the property owner to force an action isn't a fair characterization of your lawsuit it's an action to quite title and get it to hurt or judge leaving out a little language to enforce a lien the pipeline must be ordered to be sold so let's assume you had lost the quiet title action yes would that allow the court to sell the pipeline without the owner even being a party no i believe that if we had lost the action that would be sort of an absurd result right if we had lost the actual isn't that more consistent with the term and forcing the lien being exactly what judge benton has been getting at you know i think it's sort of a complicated circumstance you know if if i mean i  let me put it this way if the statute if the statute means foreclose when it says and force that i can't win and so you know that that's just the reality of the circumstance that we're in here and so our perspective and our argument is that the statute does not require the action to be a foreclosure it only requires that the action seeks to determine whether the lien is legally and that issue would have been resolved by the earlier decision but he would still have to seek he would still have to bring an action to foreclose the lien in a separate action because he chose not to counterclaim for foreclosure and this action and we don't have any control over that you know the problem with interpret in the statute as equating in force with foreclosure without using the term foreclosure is that i mean it's the same as if the statute used the word foreclosure it would give the lien claimant all of the power in the in the relationship regarding the lien and it would give the property owner no ability to sort of clear this issue up and also is that for the legislature the legislature and some of these lanes gives great power to one party typically the worker typically the employee employee and no power sometimes for the other side project c one worker's claim that they should've got time and a half overtime or some can stop this huge project well that gets into the issue of whether the statute even permits an employee to claim a lien you know our argument on that is that the employee has all sorts of other avenues to pursue it doesn't it the fact that the statute does not permit a lean to an employee doesn't doesn't eliminate their right to pursue other avenues to recoup lost income or something like that but you have some very good policy arguments but aren't they for the legislature well you know as far as the post the arguments go you're you may be right they may be better addressed to the to the legislature but they still you know they  understand why the statute is is constructed the way that it is and specifically when you look at it in comparison to north dakota's construction lien statute which has very different language regarding the attorney to exist in the pipeline in statute that that that we're going to interpret the statute to say that if you want to recoup your hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys we spent fighting this you know clearing this lien because you have to in order to release the funds that are owed to you that you can never recoup your attorney's fees even though the statute is not written in such a way that that precludes you from doing so hypothetically speaking if you were to lose in the first case who would disappear would be most hypothetically speaking i believe it would unless you have any more questions i'd like to remain reserve the remainder of my judgment in their favor in an action to enforce a lien the property must be sold it's not discretionary the court has no they can't determine whether or not to do it it must be done and that's clearly an absurd result and something that o d t would have wanted in this case looking at the construction lien statutes and the pipeline construction statutes there are a number similarities they have some of the same goals but they are not the same statues there are different chapters they cover different properties different parties they have different end goals different procedures and therefore should come as no surprise there will be different  one is by but bonding it off they can they can put the money into the quarter with recorder rather and give notice and lien goes away they can proceed you know as they see fit the downside to that for the owner is that in doing so they lose the right to get their attorneys fees that's part of the statute that the lien claim so the attorneys fees the owners out of luck another way that the attorney's fees gets thrown out is if the owner ten days before trial so well after all the discovery well after most of the prep well after most expenses are incurred if they pay that money into the court the full amount they cannot be taxed the costs which include the attorney's fees so she comes no surprise that attorneys fees are not granted and then i just i don't point to the the general american role every party is presumed required to pay their own fees including attorney's fees in the absence of a statutory contractual arrangement of the contrary the only contract here is that one this lien issue whether it was burning the amount or waiting until ten days before trial depositing it in the court was not raised below but it also is sort of irrelevant that o d t would have had to tie up two point six million dollars to bond it and as mr burke pointed out we would still lose the opportunity to collect fees on that now actions because it would have still been an action to enforce it just would have been that the other party was the prevailing party and he guessed he would have had to go and attempt to foreclose his lean and have the  you know the value of the lean determined but he would not have had to relive a gator otherwise seek to inforce the lean as far as its validity of as far as its and his entitle it to the lean so i am not sure if you have any more questions i just wanted to make a couple quick statement thank you thank you cord appreciate your