with instructions to enter judgment in his favor and dismissing all counts of the city of virginia's complaint against the basic idea of this case is that the city is trying to hold mr mitchell responsible for code violations on a property he does not own in fact he had not owned that property for more than six months prior to the time period that is referenced within the complaint the overarching issue here is that the circuit court below ignored a controlling statute when it rendered its decision thousand and twelve the only conveyance act provides a clear beginning and ending to the analysis that's required in this case and yet the circuit court made absolutely no reference to that act or to its provisions when it decided to hold mr mitchell's conveyance of the property invalid this failure to adhere to your even indeed to acknowledge controlling law would be enough to warrant reversing the judgment and remain in this matter for the record in fact provide financial basis for this court not only to  property at two twenty east yorks town in virginia illinois prior to the time frame of the complaint which references june january two thousand and eleven and forward defendant appellant as demonstrated in his brief that the deed is entitled to a terrifying issues to be addressed oral arguments today and i would like to address those in the order they were submitted to us the first question was whether the june two thousand the two loops one would be considered void or merely void the distinction and that distinction is made unload the van allen three seventy nine illinois two or eight the question is whether the deed could never be a title because certain essential elements were missing or whether it would just be possible to set aside the after the sale because the critter was in some way brought it in the transaction now the other question is that this court rates for us figure into the issue of whether the deed would be considered boys or merely voidable so i would like to return to this issue after i've addressed the other questions the second question that the court raised was what effect if any does the failure a failure of consideration have on the good of the conveyance at that issue the short answer to that is there's no effect ages so mine shall be sufficient without livery of season for the giving granting selling mortgaging leasing or otherwise conveying are transferring  jack three ninety two illinois five forty seven stated that it told with and it minutely fictitious consideration of five hundred dollars now in that case the parties agreed the five hundred dollars never existed and in the current case the record shows that while mr swan agreed to pay five hundred dollars he did not actually pay that money to mr mitchell even though it is you cited in the deep so we have a similarity of the cases there and yet the court in the there was no effect because the conveyance was executed voluntarily knowingly and deliberately in the course suited the owner of a company may sell it for very little or give it away for nothing if you desires and the conveyance cannot be set aside upon the ground the requirements of a notary knowledge which says it shall be acknowledged by a notary public point and commissioned and yet the very last sentence of that paragraph states failure to comply with this provision shall not invalidate the instrument of the grant or signature and there was evidence in that case that the deed was of knowledge outside the presence of the grantor however the court stated and acknowledgment is not necessary for the validity of it and it will probably pass title without being testified in june two thousand and twelve that he accepted the transfer of the property in june two thousand and ten from the the next question the court proffer is whether the effect of any presumed misrepresentation about the condition of the property in june two thousand and ten has an effect on the validity of the conveyance now the question we're dealing with here is whether there  taishan from the seller to the buyer and what effect that would have and i think it's important to note first that there is no basis in the record to support a finding that mr mitchell did actually misrepresent the condition of the property in june two thousand and ten plaintive introduced evidence at trial about the condition of the property as of june two thousand and twelve two years after the transfer there is very little if any evidence introduced about the condition of the property in two thousand  much later september two thousand and eleven in its appellate brief at this level the plaintiff has inserted words or allegations of fraud into its brief without any basis or support from the record and that's contrary to the doctrine from still vitus four zero nine eleven illinois page two fifty eight which states the allegations of fraud contained plaint must be established by clear and convincing evidence cannot be based upon if any misrepresentation had been put into evidence here or if it was even properly alleged in a complaint or pleading which it was not then the effect on this conveyance still would be minimal at best what we have here is a commercial property transaction and not love and some of the other cases that are discussed here today involve residential transactions which have a heightened disclosure requirement from the seller even in those contexts with a heightened burden on the sell to disclose matters about the property a seller's misrepresentation can make him viable for money damages after the transaction but it does not invalidate the conveyance of the property and lo again we find that the it's difficult to compare loach at this case because the members misrepresentation in that matter was the buyer perpetrating a fraud on the seller whereas here there are the conclusive statements have been that there was somehow  misrepresentation from the seller to the pyre but the effect is the same and a misrepresentation does not automatically render the conveyance invalid it only allows the seller to request later that the deed can be set aside yes the court asked us to consider whether the effects of any errors in the property description of the june two thousand and ten were sufficient to make the conveyance invalid the doctrine in illinois that errors in the property description the court said was very inaccurate in some respects for instance the deed cited a three story brick building between first and second avenues when an actual structure in question was a two story i'm sorry  three story block building when in fact the structure was really two story brick building with a basement located between first avenue and local streets a completely different street location and yet in that court in that decision the as stated the presumption is that in executing the deed the grantor intended to convey property he owed the court also said it's an elementary principle that deeds will a possible be made  to register a vacant building the second thing the maintenance of the nuisance the first ordinance violation have been the of the failure to register the building that applies to the owner of a building only ordinance if the city present evidence other than mr mitchell being the owner of the building and other words was there evidence presented that he in fact was an occupant or person in custody or possession that notwithstanding have been testimony from mr fenn his own enforcement officer that the building they can't for some time that was perhaps speak to the issue the justice has raised but to my knowledge there was no evidence  i returning to the description of the property within the deed it's supposed to be construed most favorably to the grantee and reconciled scription if possible so that even in granting the court said a deed to my house and watch or to one half of my lot which are very generic descriptions those may still be made sufficient if the parties can introduce extrinsic evidence to help the court site what property it's referred to then we have brought the do it three sixty illinois five eighteen there is even greater errors in the property description in that deed there is a subdivision issue and the deed cited the subdivision in the north east corner a section eighteen where the property was actually the subdivision in the northeast corner of the southwest corner of section eighteen so depending on the size of that section you're looking at a very great variance between the description in the deed and where the properties actually loved it but that court property they were receiving through the transfer of the deed in fact an even stronger language on the burnet court said a deed will not be declared void for uncertainty if it is possible by any reasonable means of construction to ascertain  description aided by extrinsic evidence what property it is intended to convey so we common apply those principles to the cases and and we find first the presumption that the grinch were intended to convey property he actually own in this matter on the record plaintiff's own evidence demonstrating the transfer of the subject property to twenty east here to town street from leo reich to the defendant in two thousand or two thousand and one there was no testimony at trial or on the record the defendant owned any other property in the city of virginia so the presumption is that he intended to convey a property he actually owned only property he did own within that city the buyer luke's one testified at trial that he knew which property was conveyed to him by the few two thousand and ten he was familiar with it he understood what was being given to him by that deep there was no testimony that any party to the transaction was mistaken in their belief as to which property they conveyed his nose crimes which property was referred to now this description with the use of extrinsic evidence does allow a party to identify the property being conveyed it's admitted that the deed refers to languages you can rent to own one illinois three one and their description of property as prions addition to the city of peoria was deemed sufficient to identify a property located in something that was actually sniffed fr legal description of the property merely a description of the property to meet property divisions as long as you can identify with the property is being referred to then it's a valid so we those are found in the cases we've just discussed they've actually all been dealt with either in my discussion here or in the brief that's been filed with the court the circuit court said lack of consideration lack of quote people description errors in the property description the buyer testimony that two years after the transaction he regrets owning the property a later date of recording the deed and the error in the notary's acknowledgement those are the reasons the circuit court held the state ballot and yet we've shown that none of those reasons type of heat transfer of the property in june two thousand and ten and at the time of the actual charge the ordinance violation and i believe that the record was supported in that sense by the testimony of michael difference between street or road is a material fact there which uncertainty about the size of the property was why the trial court found the not to be acceptable that was a factor so what should the dative say should have said law one hundred and then you put it then determine what the size of what was so the idea that it's possible to ascertain very reasonable rules of construction the property being conveyed to you can't do that in this case because it's just  one of the building code violations against the wright brothers as i didn't believe that the same reason well you can are you can argue both sides that either either he conveyed it to the wright brothers stated of doesn't that presuppose the trial court's finding that the of the attempted conveyance to the right of the sons was also invalid that mr mitchell still  reference or attach something or i'm assuming a legal description putting needs and something of that sort is there any legal authority for that proposition i believe i did say something haul in this particular case i mean sure he can bait all of this so i own the strip property there's a dispute but the guy who left but who else is standing to raise the question of the deed isn't valid because we're not sure how much of a whole lot cleared up and everyone's got state oh i understand that a that's probably not the case is not that circumstance but here i think there's a distinction that a city had with property located miscible boundaries its corporate boundaries somebody apparently knows it why don't you go after this one brother were had evidence of mr swan never took possession of the property at the time of the charge or of the time payment dot step foot on the property until i believe a trial was not aware of mission of property fails going back then the credible evidence trial court had was that mr mitchell received it from leo right and court correctly gave weight to that over putting weight and more weight on  number and that number allow somebody to go look at the tax records find out exactly what property we're dealing with and it with absolute certainty we're supposed to construe the property description favorably to the grantee so if there is a question of whether the deed conveys the entire property or part of it most favorably should be granted to go with it conveys the whole property to the granting and also it's to be construed it to allow a surveyor to locate the property with or without the aid of its trends and evidence so the fear that's been raised by the plaintiffs that were supposed to make the description adequate to the world at large overstates the case a little bit we're supposed to make our descriptions adequate so that the parties know what they're dealing with so that the surveyor can figure out what the property is being made as to the testimony of the condition of the property and i would like to stress again that there was no allegations no finding by clear and convincing evidence that there was any fraud perpetrated as to whether the condition o the property was in two thousand and eight two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven in the volume three of the record of pages seventy eight is where the court will find mr pins testimony he stated when he first inspected the property life fifteen m p h that it was probably later in two thousand and eight guessing not exactly sure when he was several features of the property to make him say it was a nuisance it was falling in disrepair and then the question on page eight has anything changed since he first or recorded were transferred i'm not sure if it was a doucette trial judge but there were affidavits to the effect that the parties actually did mail the deeds of the cast kind of recorder and for some reason there was an additional form that wasn't included it was sent back or lost and so it did not get officially filed and recorded until may of two thousand and eleven but that brings up another point the city has stated there was no notice of this transfer at the time that it's inspecting the propert to the train for the convenience between the two parties as to the alleged privy previous conveyance to the wright brothers i believe the court adequately stated that if the property had been transferred earlier city of virginia still can however entitled to the full legal effect of his executed acknowledged and recorded instrument of conveyance and so defendant requests this court to recognize the sworn deed as written to be fully effective to transfer his title in that subject