will be happy to hear you  time you've got a chain of title or chain of custody disputes every person who's ever alleged to have title constitutes an indispensable party to the litigation indeed the indispensable witnesses they may be really important to the case but his party it's very different and so what i've heard your answer say is it's a very important part of our case very important factual point but but but that's not that's not the show needed to be an indispensable party and then all so would that mean that it's no i mean if that's true then that seems to suggest that there's a really really big and broad legal principle decision any time there's a chain of title subject to countersuit across claim or some sort of new suit if you do you have any support for that what i'm positing would be big and broad legal principle i'm not sure we'd read about that in a civil procedure casebook area like that of that work creates a huge chain of custody problem kind of title problems that has not been evolved and it's not because i could not believe it because b of a decided to well what about what about what about the filing i mean i mean there was there was some kind of strange procedural farland in this case too as i understand it what really came up was an intention to add a fraud affirmative defense and that that was filed very quickly a motion to amend or for leave to a man who was followed very close in time to trial and then that wasn't ruled on a trial so therefore that affirm the defense is not become part of the operative pleading and so well it's a very very strange one level to to issue a directed verdict or rule fifty to kind of you know hire a directed verdict you know special creature after only discretion or filing as late as the to deny it's a disability unless there was some extraordinary circumstance is that reasonable you'd agree with the proposition defect in the chain of title now you know when when the poetry can come to and it kind of you know had a different feel to it or move from all the day to day action and everything like that and so when i st read your brief i got the sense that your argument a real fifty two feet when you hadn't been fully heard on an issue that i thought that would get you you had been heard on that last two truth and lending no defense that you wanted to bring on that you would get you would get a motion on on whatever is meant by the eve of trial but even cry and so what you're saying now is no the issue if i if i if i'm understanding your argument right what because if there wasn't a subsequent assignment then d ok didn't have the ability to commence it actually did you do a pretrial statement or did he do anything like that which indicated you know a lot of judges say this and i will call witnesses these are my may call witnesses these are the exhibit type like to give you typically have an exchange of exhibit which we'll call may call witnesses each judge has a different way but what witnesses are you going to call what notice did you give of this and what exhibits did you did you quote in the record information is not on the record we inquired as to whether federal st bank had previously been known as federal home loan buying or whether the mortgage servicer have previously gone by the name on the jay the issue is that there are two proper endorsements one to be of late and one to the other bank and there is no subsequent endorsement from this other bank so as far as sheridan is concerned initially and then we can be issued thank you yes the quick answer to that is that there was no evidence that would reduce during the trial that are going to say oh hi it's part of our initial case we want to show you that that other end it he'd have have title you know or that or that you know target is mortgage or somehow the instruments weren't worth other people i mean it it makes perfect sense to me that and in a plaintiffs in a collection action or in a foreclosure action st point would be to prove that they have a valid title that they have authorization in the instruments and that there's a default those sorts of things but the question is not what came in at trial but what it what it was you know did you see evidence in discovery are you aware of other indorsement to st home loan brank because if those are out there then it suggests that the defendant wasn't fully heard on this issue because that's the other half of the coin that would typically come out at trial it's usually present pati only be about the fact that they received an assignment they might not know those witnesses might be beyond the scope of their personal knowledge as to whether or not the st bank assigned or endorsed those notes to  home loan bank before or after so it makes perfect sense to me that the o j doesn't know what what st what other assignments are endorsements st thank you sneaking in so the question is why can you say  that this is kind of the limits of what your witnesses can know why can you say that this issue was fully heard if there would be a lot of witnesses from st bank or from federal home loan bank or from someone else with knowledge of those things beyond the process of the federal rules and during their there was a discovery period in this case in which in which the defendants could have discovered whether there were any witnesses such as the witnesses that you identify potential witnesses issue what was it related to it was part of the exhibit you know in my i guess lay opinion on it that it did not look like it appeared part of the it was properly part of the exhibit importantly though there was no evidence that was a district judge that did the time in between the st thinking the day was proper so i think on the record that exists there is no basis to find that that did that finding should be disturbed there's no clear error on the on the record because there   the face of these instruments and i don't believe that there was there was any evidence testimonial evidence produced to that point and therefore there's no there's no basis i think for a finding to my if your honor to direct me to something else in the record i could perhaps address it but i don't have i'm not aware of any other document that would reflect any other interest in these loan about less than maybe a full page it extends to two pages and relates to this trial exhibit four and it's your it's your witness and it's and the question is what's their stamp from st home loan bank on with document when you received your with the said yes so once that sample is on there when i received the document and i think that i hope i'm this is it you know this is a j two hundred and forty four to forty the assignment allegedly it was already preassigned to someone else then how could that be a valid assignments to deal jay maybe i'm reading too much into the cross examination and maybe this is all just a clear fair question but i'd really like to hear your to be this is an amendment to the note and i believe this is what i was referring to earlier a nd ago when i referred to i think the marking that appears on page eight  amounts to some endorsement of the the loan instruments to some other entity he did there was an opportunity to delve into to create a record on that and and to the point  was present right here during the cross examination of the o'jays witness and there was you know there was some questioning to this but there was no evidence a deuced i believe from the trial exhibit four and then this last kind of floating tapes are not floating page because usually people have to say yes this is what the document says it is in this document one level speaks to your point it's numbered it  trial counsel so i don't have firsthand knowledge from which to draw on that i do have just my my recollection of the record i make a suggestion that the parties exchanged trial binders and i believe that's done that's done typically in the jurisdiction of the virgin islands the poor trial with the magistrate but my my opposing counsel might be able to clear and clear up exactly what was done in this particular case but i would assume based on prior experience that and then for whatever reason the hearing was suspended at that point the hearing did not immediately resume other an eight month period i believe in which the parties themselves trying to settle the case but  the st hearing so i think that there is i would point to that case in particular but you know that you have to acknowledge you have to acknowledge that this is the this is the inverse of what all normally happen in a directed verdict or already you know rare creatures but but usually what happens in directed verdict is the defense stands up and says aha after plaintiff's case in chief they haven't proved the elements needed for their offense and it's for their counts these are the missing elements this is the proof that they haven't given and the standard mechanism for directed verdict it's not the plaintiff putting their case on and saying you've heard all you need to hear how about how about how about a verdict in our favor and so just one case is really on to something this is kind of a radical inversion in even the case that you identified allowed some so how exactly sense it is kind of foreign to how this rule operates can we say that your opponent was fully heard on these issues as well i would  witnesses but you don't get to do anything yourself because in order for you to win on this it strikes me that that's what fully heard would have to mean and if it's a special case you might have to start going down the road of think aha they made no initial disclosure s to me aha they did they provided no trial exhibits al hadi did none of these that they had no witness list that none of the the other thing they are fourteen for and is all they intended to do was cross examine and therefore because that was the full you know i would i would say i would say both i mean there was no there was nothing probative to put on because there were there were two issues there were there was the issue that was disputed as to d l day as authority to foreclo you know not every era traversable it's been the sort of thing that you know if you just sit there and say look even even if things work lou didn't want to change the outcome did you have any component of that to your argument or is it just not was perfectly fine judge determined that the only thing the only evidence the defense could put on would be the sheridan i think i refer there was there were motions that would be allowed at trial and this and this would the defendant had not participated in the discovery portion of the case so there was there were no documents that had been produced discovery by the defendants to that point and  magistrate with rulings on the record on the docket the part of our record which i think would would govern the scope of the of the trial here and again like i would say i would also just point to the operative answer does not all fifty two like it to strike music very very very strange device if if if all the rulings were already well i think that no clear cut separate r d no no i'm so sorry that's not what i meant what i meant was there was there there was a circumstance possible at that  of how the parties would proceed or generally what would and would not be heard that there was a hearing on the specific motions that had been filed prior to trial i believe the motions and norman may well that was the nature of the hearing that was how the morning or movie and quiet the trial generally you know if it's legitimate or not and so i guess i guess my question is if that's the only issue left what else were you going to do or do you have everything you need from the fate of the document and then the testimony that you think was very targeted and for a reason on your cross examination which he said was that there when you got it you know yes that was there when i got it what else did you need it if that's if that's the if that's the only issue left i do are we what other components of trial are going to happen assume that the st bank represented can't come assume that no one else can come because anyone else would have been out of time to you know who did you have in the courtroom that was ready to testify or who did you have subpoenaed to show up that day that was ready to testify to this issue because if the answer is no one then it seems that this isn't really a case not allowed to call judge's ruling six quashing the subpoena at the st bank was an abuse of discretion and contrary to law and it then if you prove that then you then it then it follows from there that you weren't fully hrrem the issue well because judge i'll just speak for myself it doesn't matter who put them on if you want to listen to killer solution from the witness you'll be permitted to you know the question is are you telling us that you were mean i think that you say that you didn't have this alliance beforehand it was it was only recently made known to you but i mean that's a little strange too because your client find it on page four so i mean i mean this notion that hey it was late breaking late breaking the livery i mean yeah i guess maybe didn't know it was going to be part of a trial exhibit but it looks like those are your client signatures on there but no my client would not have