title insurance premiums to the attorney agents but didn't didn't run of the plaintiff's experts admit that the attorneys rendered some services and said an appropriate fee would be something in the neighborhood of twenty percent of the  that maybe compensable under some other section of ross perot and this is me this question is have the courage of the dispute your honor and i say is because really the issue comes down to an know if that's true then that is something that the trial judge after a lengthy trial trial when it came up with findings of fact and conclusions of law and in order for you to prevail or something like that you would so if i understand your position you don't dispute just make this finding that the attorneys rendered actual distinct and necessary services like your these because they were either a false notions for summer job is that these issues needed to be aired out and she needed to hear testimony and there had to be a trial remaining issue but you're of the that particular issue we believe has been very very carefully vetted in his briefs and we believe that that you have to perform competing legally entitled to the filthy now if you the trial judge process everything and what she has come out with a very detail order making all of these findings going for twenty thirty pages in order for us to overturn that we have to say that her defendants agent programs and found them to be in compliance with the regulations with the i t i a and rest of so naturally was their testimony and this the regulator testified experts testified but judge made for made a finding that in fact we complied with the regulations which is consistent with what the regulators did in her summary judgment ruling she ruled that the state claim went no broader than the federal claim and that issue has not been appealed so we think th made findings that there were no services provided mr torrey said well that's correct that's not correct paragraph twenty one of the factual findings starts the attorney agents for both tyco in chicago title that such and such paragraph twenty services actually perform in the first appeal this court assume that the attorney agents provided no services it assumed that because that's what the plaintiffs are read there which there were no services that the defendant title companies did everything and based on that statement of a claim based on those allegations the script corrected certification we got beyond that and we had a trial and at that trial plaintiffs didn't prove that case they didn't prove there were no services and in fact the evidence showed the only services i think it was just a space of asked about mr hoppe false testimony twenty to fifty percent of the value of services provided by the attorney agents i think that's moral that was their expert trying to minimize what we did and he even he admitted that the attorney agents provide services to mr curry try to  witness yes your honor yes your honor you will i believe the attorney agent was expected to will be exceptions at the closing from the title commitment so that would be a direct direct that would be addre direction of the title company that they don't independently make that determination the title company has guidelines as to whether the attorneys can do it in a tree or to try to leave an exception where the exception should be waived that would expose the title company  professionals are involved if the if the title company will not issue title based on what the attorney says then there will be no transaction if the attorney will not agree to waive the exception based on his or group of freshmen judgment there will be no transaction so they have the ability to exercise their professional judgment at the closing and that's just the message to the services that the attorneys provide throughout the process and judgment found that the attorneys were involved will that critical issue of determination of insurability to the end and that it was well against older son is the first step in the process but there is a long process to follow which judgment from understood and discussed now when i mentioned mr hopkins testimony about twenty to fifty percent mr comb one of the attorney agents also testified and he said that in this case in the transaction issue here he spent more time on the transaction then at his rate he was paid for so he provided more than a hundred percent of the service so the suggestion that this is a  says ok well we'll give you that the attorneys did something they could be compensated under a different subsection of arrest but not under the attorney h and based on the rags i responded that well that's prohibit a payment for services actually performed so the claim in this case that the money paid to the attorney agent's was wrong plaintiff's rules on that case and that claim the freeman decision which i it's not in need of any agency's interpretation but language means what it means it's clear and hunts attempts to importance to him regulatory oversight and how that money is paid the then there is no wide building the question the supreme court asked is is it proper to share our feet with a party who did nothing that's what the spring board generalized west as providing so in this case harbor speak to providing compensation for services actually perform it's consistent with the testimony in this case plaintiff's expert mr mitchell testified  exception applies to everything and the courts have sold well now the plaintiffs are you the attorneys must provide every service to get any compensation and the circle could address that theory and  was inconsistent with the statute as long as services were provided as i said we bat analysis begins and ends with freeman which permits payments to be made to attorney agents without consideration of the overall fairness or value or reasonable risk or all those terms as long as services are being provided and while we conceded in the brief that freeman deals with a different issue attorney agent in this case the party receiving compensation provided no services and courts throughout the country agreed we cite down a case which plaintiffs largely ignored and it dealt with claim that you were paid too much you didn't do all the services therefore you can't get all the fee doesn't support the per se claim under arrest and if anything would support a claim that would be silly individualistic that you could never have a client's house and speaks to this case the chicago to entitle witnesses who explained how the programs work the circuit court findings describe the involvement of the attorney agency in the title exam in the issuance of the commitment in clearing away the not dictating particular practices for title insurance companies and their agents ok look the florida state said this is what we're going to do in florida thrill dealing with florida practices and we don't know let those practices work but it's not going to dictate anyone's practices anywhere else has said we're not dictating practices florida statement somehow applied judgment from a factual findings that the defendants complied with the florida statement she outlined the brilliance of the first statement and it said as a matter of fact the that as long as that people can become excited for the services they provide which would mean that even if plain just prevailed they should imo write the really claim we would then have to decide thousands of times case factually and there's no complaint the judge makes the excluded evidence that the plaintiffs attempted to introduce or that there was any trial they're going to screw to try to prove the claim they brought to the appellate court the last time that is there were no services that that claim is contradicted by all of the evidence including their evidence so they're left with this new claim that is that we have to provide every service in order to receive the compensation that claiming or statute ignores freeman and it's inconsistent with the plain mean the statute in every case to interpret and finally even if we accept that claim and follow the florida that after they first decision in this court that the case was sent back now or late for class certification in effect just for well you know before and administrative determination of damages where is a different case it's very different it's talking about a single issue that policy statement on and that single issue is can twenty six seven be apply to a s do you think that the trial court is able was able to have a hearing and then come to decisions factual terminations there were in some measure cattery to what you believe should decide the motion for partial summ were some facts involved in it too and then to to reverse the trial judge i'm mad and send it back for an administrative determination of damages that's three relief your request is this and the the bottom line is