POINT XIII
                            ----------

        THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

            Defendants-Appellants raised the issue of stare decisis to
        the Lower Court in their Memorandum of Law in opposition to the
        Judgement For Foreclosure and Sale (A 387 -> 406), however no
        Supreme Court Justice need be reminded by any litigant of the so
        obvious doctrine, defined by Steven H. Gifis Law Dictionary as:

            "Stare Decisis; to stand by that which was decided;
            rule by which common law courts ''are slow to interfere
            with principles announced in the former decisiona and
            often uphold them even though they would decide otherwise
            were the question a new one'' 156 P.2d 340, 345.
            ''Although [stare decisis] is not inviolable, our
            judicial system demands that it be overturned only on a
            showing of good cause.  Where such a good cause is not
            shown, it will not be repudiated''."


        The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure state:

            " ''to stand by things dedcided'' The doctrine of precedent,
            under which it is necessary for a court to follow earlier
            judicial decisions when the same points arise again in
            litigation ...  This doctrine is simply that, when a
            point or principle of law has been once officially
            decided or settled by the ruling of a competent court
            in a case in which it is directly and necessarily involved,
            it will no longer be considered as open to examination
            or to a new ruling by the same tribunal, or by those
            which are bound to follow its adjudications, unless it
            be for urgent reasons and in exceptional cases."

            Plaintiff-Appellant violated the doctrine of stare decisis
        in their application of the illegal motion, and that the Lower
        Court also violated the doctrine by granting and signing of the
        Amended Decision and Order, especially given that no "good
        cause" was asserted, and that under oath in Plaintiff-
        Respondent's own Affidavit on page 4 paragraph 18 (A - 406) that
        the reason for the illegal motion was:

            "...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."

            This Court sholud hold that the doctrine of stare decisis
        alone to uphold the integrity of the judicial system, and to
        allow a decision and order, not appealed from, where the parties
        have apparently for whatever reason at that time have/had
        accepted the decision, to allow any court to at a later time on
        a simple request of a party to disturb any prior decision
        without following court rules, sets precedent that no litigant
        can rely on any decision which can willy nilly be completely
        changed.

            The doctrine of stare decisis must stand, and at the very
        least, this Appellate Court must void and vacate the Amended
        Decision and Order (A - 19) and let the Original Decision and
        Order (A - 25) stand.  The failure to stand by stare decisis and
        allow the Original Decision and Order to be reversed by the
        Lower Court would be an indication to every litigant that no
        decision in the Nineth Judicial District may be counted on.