same type of facts in other words knowledge of the loan the terms of the loan the court improperly concluded i would say that you know that that it didn't believe that the plaintiffs could have been hurt or damaged because they were aware of the terms of their loan and they paid it paid their interest payments for ten years clearly didn't qualify for it qualified for the property didn't have the equity they hadn't had and they put him in a situation that they struggled and kept up with for ten years but eventually e i think that's one emitting the flaw that i've alleged number one i think the product is much broader than that much broader i mean we don't know anything about what their income was look at payment history i mean there's a lot that goes allegations are true the question then is how were they harmed by this because they took a loan and paid for it i think whenever there's a fraud like this there absolutely is harm and i think to disregard to disregard the fact that they were put intentionally put into a lot on that they probably didn't qualify for that they couldn't afford i mean if you look at to determine which loan to give the client to so that was in their own brief i don't know how you can you can say that they they absolutely as a matter of law were not damaged i think that's i think it's drawing least on one appraisal that we all knew about which was which indicated the thirty five percent loan to value ratio which just saltsman for that and they lived in this house for ten years paying nothing more than the so they knew of these these loans were full of problems and phony appraisals they collected a lot of money from some two of these defendants and now they're turning around saying oh there's nothing wrong with his lo we didn't do anything wrong it's i don't understand it really is quite frankly i don't understand that account counsel can't you question sure so i just want to problems i'm going to stop you because you're just a little over four minutes left if you want to reserve this would be a good time for you to stop if you want to keep going that's fine to do you could say that ok all right on the apple do you side who's going to harm simply does not flow it cannot flow from a possible standpoint it cannot flow from the existence of the phony appraisal and that was what judge sauls meant she judge needed to be drawn here there is nothing on the face been appraisal that would put appellant is on notice that they cannot afford their loan and appraisal and this is alleged in the complaint that the appraisal stated  possible there is no they haven't supported that with anything in the in the complaint with the appraisal in south is they haven't they just simply have been alleged that eight the complaint as being support for the inference that they wanted the court to truong but all of those all of those paragraphs said is that the nd allegedly phony appraisal was delivered to countrywide under from knowing they were harmed and that's what they had to establish in order to make the claim that their arguments were i'm sorry in order to establish their claims were highly they needed to establish th that's correct your honor i think based on what their theory is there is no way to fix it their legal theory is flawed just as a basic premise big here and there is no universe under which they didn't somehow allege that again appearing on behalf of bank of new york now and if you loan servicing i there there's nothing about a poem said this morning that wasn't already stated in his brief and i believe the arguments on our answering brief covers the issues that have been raised in response to the panel's question about leave to a man i agree with my co counsel at every opportunity i have some given an opportunity to show how he could possibly amend their complaint to add new  additional facts to cure what is a fatal defect with the whole theory underlying their case and they just haven't done so and given that failure this court only has to decide whether the pleading itself states  kind it simply does not and the simple us reason why it doesn't is that it is on time and it's clear from the allegations and from the arguments that that the reason why it's untimely is because all of the via all of the terms of the loan yes and there was some there was your question was breaking up a bit but from the gist we i was getting was there's been no showing of facts even in the underlying motion no declaration and i agree i believe that's what the record reflects is that at no time has there been an offer of additional facts and i think i think it's clear from from what's been planned and what's been argued this is an attempt to avoid the application of the statute of limitations and it the problem that they run into is the problem we addressed readily in our brief under the nih mark and the pearl is case is it's not a lenders responsibility to appraisal by or was property for the bar was benefit and nor does a lender have an obligation to determine for the bar  affordable and that's what the that's what's barring this case from moving forward under another ten beyond that i it's not obligated to provide every place a lark but not under no reason why those appraisals are being made it is for the what the lender to decide whether or not they will qualify for the loan qualification for a nd appraisal i guess the possibility issue that was raised by john solomon is correct this was a nd appraisal of the value of the property i think it was almost four or five hundred thousand dollars more than the  st there's no reasonable explanation as to why that would have prevented borrowers from accepting the loan under the terms that were all disclosed to them so i think you know unless the panel has questions i think that that is the end of the beginning of the end of the analysis for the court i don't think it needs to go further than the statute of limitations but if it does it can it can rely on ny mark and per most of all the decision that the know i'm not sure what to say except that and when i stated our position on the papers i got a quote larry i definitely disagree with the court's conclusions i think the court was  fraud i think the key discovery rule is very clear that that's when they discover the fraud that begins the the running of the statute of limitations when they discovered or should have reasonably discovered but i and i think it's only be we're stuck here because of this notion that because they got a loan the paper apparently wanted and they paid for it for ten years that everything should be fine and i think it's incorrect to substitute the facts of the loan for when they discover the fraud i think that's but some manner i don't think you can do that i think you have to look at when they discover the fraud they got a copy of the fraud t appraisal and i think the reasonable inferences you can draw from that are why would they have put why would they have gotten the nd appraisal not shown to them put it in the file i meant to me it's obvious that the only way these people would qualify for the loan they were given is because they needed this phony appraisal on their i mean that to me was a reasonable inference from the those particular facts that an alleged and i think arguments all around so thank you very much the matter is i care y