POINT VIII
                               ----------

        A "de mimimus Court scrivener's error" CANNOT RISE TO THE LEVEL
        THAT JUSTIFIES JUDICIAL INTERVENTION VIA MOTION.............

            Plaintiff-Respondent submitted their final Motion for
        Judgement and Foreclosure and Sale (A - 324 -> 337), and
        Defendants-Appellants challenged the motion in their Affidavit
        in Opposition (A - 338 -> 386) and Memorandum of Law (A - 387 ->
        406) because the Motion was based entirely upon
        Plaintiff-Respondent's earlier own reworded Amended Decision and
        Order (A - 7).

            The Lower Court's action in granting and signing
        Plaintiff-Respondent's illegal motion that created the Amended
        Decision and Order resulted in the signing the final Judgement
        being appealed herein.  In spite of Defendants-Appellants
        vigorous challenge to the motion, the Lower Court accepted
        Plaintiff-Respondent's weak and specious explanation for their
        evading the black letter law by not filing a proper motion.

            Plaintiff-Respondent in their own Reply Affidavit on page 4
        paragraph 18 (A - 406) made the following sworn excuse regarding
        their involvement for their creation of the Amended Decision and
        Order, and defended it by stating to the Lower Court:

            "...Plaintiff will merely say that the Decision and
            Order granted on April 20, 2007, contained a de
            minimis Court scrivener's error which was corrected
            by the August 27, 2007 Amended Decision and Order."

        As defined by the Steven H. Gillis Law Dictionary:

            "DE MINIMIS; insignificant; minute, frivolous.
            Something or some act which is ''de minimis'' in
            interest is one which does not rise to a level of
            sufficient importance be dealt with judicially.
            ''Trifles, or matters of a few dollars or less.''
            121 F. 2d 829, 832."

            "DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX; the law does not care for
            small things; the law does not bother with trifles."

            Clearly Plaintiff-Respondent's own definition and admission
        to the Lower Court to support their illegal faxed motion is
        proof positive that legally they should never have requested
        judicial intervention for a "trifling matter", and since they
        did, they and the Court knew that the faxed letter request was
        legally and intentionally a motion, improperly and illegally
        done.

            Plaintiff-Respondent can not claim a "de minimis Court
        scrivener's error" to shield their "motion" that made major
        changes of the holdings to the Original Decision and Order of
        April 27, 2007.

            This Court should declare that the Beals letter faxed to the
        Lower Court was in fact a motion, and that by Plaintiff-
        Respondent's own admission the changes requested were legally
        "de minimis" in nature that can't rise to the level of requiring
        judicial intervention, should not have been granted, and this
        Court should void and vacate the Amended Decision and Order that
        was granted on those grounds.