this missing the action on the basis proc or believe that this action is barred by previous decision between the land and which was a decision which we've included in the heel of course decision was affirmed on appeal in this case the plaintiffs alleging the plaintiffs include additional parties and the defendants included ition parties but the facts are under motion to dismiss as speed pleaded indicate that the defendants both before during and after the proceedings in the in the first case willfully and intentionally trespassed on the  the case to this court in that case however the trial court seemed to have a defective understanding of even that element of the case when he referred to the action took place during the appeal of the first case as court granted judgment on this night in two thousand that well i think that was more problematic the problem is however until the eighth of august of two thousand and eleven nobody knew where the line actually what this meant let's presume that the defendants had a ever ever occurred until the boundary was determined so is a necessary element of the trespass action that the court determines where the boundary actually is was that was that's a determine that the continuing trespass was not was also include you know these are matters which happened in a legally relevant time period without side with the first case had anything to do with anything  it was five it decided in august of two thousand and eleven the trespassed into two thousand and ten how can that possibly be included in the first action and be barred by race judicata the first action now you know the the  second element of risk judicata necessarily is if there's an identity of causes of action now we recognize that the supreme court in part river case has expanded that notion to include a transactional test of all our you know flows out of the same set of operative facts here the first case had only to determine what the boundary actually was the operative facts were including her separately for a couple of years after the founding determination was that the defendants were actually trespassing over the boundary which had been determined by the court they didn't seek a state when they came to support the city and there was no decision by the trial court that that alternative boundary was going to state existence until the final issue by this order of the appeal or any time thereafter so if if we assume that logic the decision in the earlier case amounts to introduce a license for them to  on into the future forever because all they have to do is refer back to say well look you didn't bring it up when you're coming here to seek the boundary which seems ludicrous to me from a judicial stand to give the defendants the a license parsa subsequent action a trespass after that initial final judgment or by judgment on august eighth of two thousand and eleven clearly can't be barred by the initial action rectify the grievances that the plaintiff has here for subsequent press passes even as the trial court put it during the appeal which i think you know doesn't make any sense at all because  salary where the interests are exactly the same of a fire operator has a completely different interest of the landlord and we've included a number of cases which indicated that ford is not a guarantor and insurer of their tenants actions it's cetera et cetera it's not such a relationship that imposes a general duty on a landlord to protect their tenants interests and i think the cases that we've cited clearly show that there isn't adequate pretty here either to redre trial after the or something he just said we're bound by even press passes that took place during the pendency of the case on appeal which i think makes no sense whatsoever but it's just you know there is this notion of legal relevancy and that has to do with the appropriate time period you know we we all know that we can anticipatory susan buddy because i think he's going to do wrong to be next year would be laughed out of court that's just not how we do business if you know even in the most egregious cases where somebody thinks they're being stuck until it in an action is taken you the courthouse door is not open to you to act and i think in this case where we're dealing with intentional after forever complaining about any further trespass if they're all tied in with a series of transactions like the rest they say they're the second event was ten years down the road obviously