national unions petition to intervene now the lower court and national union both rely upon this court's ruling you know previous matter regarding stand now this court did fin national union had standing to pursue intervention however finding this handing is present is not defining of introgression there was no motion or petition for intervention before the court in  the national union pursued its petition to intervene it had known of this action for more than three years in addition it was aware of the modification order in two thousand and seven for more than two years plainly the national union should have and could have pursued intervention any time within that three year time frame the fact that  upon the principles of white and wrong it's based on equity now this is co incided in section two dash fourteen zero one but the principles on which rest of the principals right or wrong december of two thousand and six and it was a consent form or when it was modified in july of two thousand and seven there was no consensus contest explain for which a meritorious defense two to be was that there was a mistake in the law when the modification order was granted a mistake in law the quite event the defendant came before the court for the modification order and says that the defendant had been mistaken as to the amount of the policy coverage and that there was a higher policy at issue and that mistake justified  legal rationale was insufficient to support that haitian of the original consent order and the court relied upon that in its holding that it was an insufficient  maintained for the sake of consistency that the players would submit that in this case the fact that there needs to be a factual rationale and not merely legal rationale the basis of the original consent for making the point to somehow responsible for the defendant's misrepresentation it is putting the cart before the horse and and it just does not make sense logically you can't say that point it was negligent for believing the defendant's representation presently if you look at national unions argument closely what they're saying is that the information wasn't presented to the court prior to the original out two thousand six  the primary issue before this court is equity and equity plainly supported the modification it was the defendant's representation didn't pursue i'm declaratory judgment in any way i did it can hardly be said that they acted reasonably or rationally in this matter and taken in the totality of the circumstances he plainly did not response brief the national union does not mention this issue at all i think it's fair to say that that issue is conceded the third order that is a product of a bash fourteen zero one but i will say that the totality of the circumstances is what the court will look at to determine whether the party activists reasonably in this case also after the modification was entered in the intervening year and a half it wasn't possible for the plaintiffs to pursue modification of the order because it had been granted  fact there was a legal disability in that but the plaintiffs could not pursue the remedy that they now see because it had been granted for that period of time a year and a half i would submit it i mean additional period honor i do not have a case on point for that but i think it's certainly reasonable to perceive that as as a disability there was nothing that we could do to see that remedy i a final order in that regard there is there was no further action taken i should say or and given that thirty days it has passed from from that date and it was included in this briefing i would say that it's included in this matter ago it never it says that it's not responsible on the policy not and in fact it in another proceeding it prevailed on that claim although that is also up for a defending it it does play a role of national union at all it only plays a role in that it caps national unions why ability at a certain dollar figure but does not actually it's not a forcible against national so i don't i can't conceive of a reason why national union would need to consent to such an order given that it's not liable the party seeking to challenge that order has thirty days from which to file its notice of appeal a poison title to only one post judgment motion and therefore successive post judgment motions but even putting city art was side since the trial court is nice the motion to reconsider on july the third two thousand the thirty day time period began to run and the notice of motion because it sought the same relief that the plaintiff side back in two thousand and seven which was namely to increase the judgment from one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand it made no new arguments parties act as if there had been no judgement and or another words by their actions they can buy that they're going to allow the judgement to be set aside and i specifically  spring they didn't serve us at all they didn't take it over here to the department insurance and certainly if they did they put it in the response of sleeping in our response or pleading they would have known the policy it would filing motions in two thousand and nine that's beyond two years now for the first time they argue that well we're under some sort of disability zero but what were they supposed to do between july nineteenth two thousand and seven in june for two thousand since the trial or it actually ruled in their favor and that was the status case during that time period we are you argue they should of the five something should have known certain facts that plaintive should have known certain facts they are not identical parties and not they did not have the same from ation and they cannot be perceived to have the same requirements place there is because they could have issued discovery is not just not the same as saying negligence in this case they were told by brewer what the policy limits were and brewer reiterated that to the court if they couldn't rely on