unpaid rent on three separate occasions towing him out a five thousand four hundred thirty dollars to a signatory on your she was not this was a computer generated check that had a standard computer generated signature or have an appropriate five slash three four twenty six an interest instrument is converted if a bank makes or of things payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to force an instrument or receive payment hayworth homes bank account where the checks were presented for payment is first minute bend in trust in located in charleston illinois counting the money in question was converted once those funds were taken out and taken out of that bank account and that is the point in time in which mr one exercise hayward comes never transacted any business with mr juan he didn't know him any money and had no right to the funds the action of taking the checks from his renter was not the side of the conversion mr one could have torn those checks  on the way or returned them to hayworth homes when that check was presented for payment and those funds were removed from hayworth homes account that was when the conversion occurred who lives in charleston pick it up for him and bring it to mr one later discovers that the generator is the property if there were phones and has been taken from one of their construction sites kevin you would be proper in calls county because that was where the conversion occurred and not in court's transfer of venue to champagne county is reversible error furthermore any judgment order following an improper denial of titian for a change of venue is void according to the case of peoria if you or your rental incorporated here so maybe go to the merits of yes your honor i just i believe that it's important to point this issue out because i think the trick the judge incorrectly applied the law here as he did not emotion of a case and that's why i bring it to the court's attention i will i will move on to my third issue regarding the issue of holder in due course i don't believe that mr one can be considered a holder in due course he did not take the check in good faith which is one of the requirements of being a holder in due course he never had any business transactions with him or things attract check was made directly from hayworth holmes to michael why there was no at any point have they ever met the mutual service casualty company the elizabeth state bank case stated the court determined that knowledge of potential foul play is imputed to a party accepting a checked where the employee have a draw are excess attempts to negotiate a check and there are as no debt to the party except in the check similarly here the checks were presented to mr one for payment of french by employee of hayworth home or written out of the business account to him or phones and contained a computer generated signature all of these should have raised doubts in them and his mind clearly if this is a computer generated signature on three not one but three separate occasions these checks for it not him for the rent of an employee i believe it's illogical to believe that employer is just going to write out checks for the rent of an employee i think he not properly consider the factors and making a determination on this motion seven thirty five by all c s five slash two twelve zero three states impertinent part in all cases tragic that a jury any party may within thirty days of sutherland a second district case stated that the court has great discretion to decide whether to modify or set aside its judgment within thirty days its entry pursuant to a two twelve zero three motion according to the first district case entered and realized her mistake well within the thirty days and provided a reasonable explanation for her mistake that of a countering and misfiring and counting state at the hearing on the motion judge leonard stated that the court did not believe that there was any court of uses discretion by not grant a motion the second restatement of torts describes conversion as an intentional exercise of dominion and or control over chattel which says seriously interferes with the right of another to control it but the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel numerous courts have ruled that money can be the subject of a conversion provided that it can be described identifier second here the checks were written for specific amount where he may not be aware of the existence of the rights with that she is interfering basically one can be a convert where he and instantly by stolen goods therefore the mere fact that mr want to exercise control over hayworth homes identifiable fun the other party to go to trial on the merits here and there's no reason that mr one should not be required to go to trial but isn't reasonable is in this situation is to punish a response there were times when the victim of a conversion and victim of a countering mistake of their  this case both should be sustained essentially with regard to then you know the interesting thing about the venue is that apparently the plaintiff believes that this alleged conversion took place at the time and the funds were removed from her client's account actually i think the conversion if there was one didn't take place at that point but rather would have taken place when the funds were sent back to my client's account so if you're if you're going to all of the allege that there is a conversion the fines have to reach my client before there isn't any otherwise what you have is a you accept that argument then think about where venue could lie if the plaintiff in this case suppose they banked by on line were through the mail and it was in cook county the radically on their argument then venue would be in cook county or off shore perhaps so the point is that venue was proper in this case and properly established by way county at no time did he ever do business in coles county he has no bank accounts in coles county he never visited or otherwise entered coles county he lives in elgin which is kane county he owns property in champagne county he rented that property in champagne to tabitha benning told and the checks upon which the plaintiff bases these planes were delivered to him in champaign county and he deposited the check stand in his account if you see in champaign county or chase bank in cook county so if you're going to look at venue in terms of where the transaction occurred in fact this transaction was finalized if you look at it from a point of view of conversion at the point where the funds went back to my client otherwise you would have a situation where i can foresee a situation where the funds are removed and they never reach my point as a conversion occurred i would say no you can't base venue then on that series with regard to once it was transferred then to champaign county and ultimately we ended  contacted him about any problems with the checks and if you look at the checks the checks are dated july seventh two thousand and eleven august thirty one two thousand and eleven and september thirtieth two thousand and eleven and all throughout that period of time no one from hayworth holmes parent when you found out anything caught on to anything called my client nothing so at the time he takes the checks you know by me is so if there's anything wrong with the checks at the time that he said he had no reason to believe that his benefield wasn't authorized to give him the checks there was nothing on the face of the checks the called into question their authenticity and that he applied those checks to her the face of those facts would indicate that there was something wrong with these chaps there must also be no reason to question its authenticity on account of apparent evidence of forgery alteration know irregularity or incompleteness the point of holder in due course is that one must honestly pay for the instrument and not know that there's anything wrong with it and if that's the case then that person gets paid period otherwise if you accept their argument you've turned the holder in due course depends completely on its head so i think that really when judge leonard was at the trial  he did mention that there had been no no response but he went ahead and said ok based on this record have you established the affirmative defense of holder in due course and he said yes and that was basically basis he found a judgment for my client that there was a problem since they were not owed anything by this company and had no transaction or affiliation with them i want to say that in terms of being a holder into course you are not obligated otherwise you would never be able to defend against a forged document or something of that nature so i think in this case really what you have to look at it's not only that there was no debt between hayward's homes and and my client cause of action for conversion and and i think he was he he thought they could there's no question about that but i think he still reached the correct conclusion here even if you don't agree with that because he also found that we motion i would also say that we hear a lot about substantial justice and that the party should be required to go to trial i went to trial i mean that's the curious thing about this this is if you read the briefs there's a lot of talk about no trial we had a trial it's unfortunate that the other side didn't didn't hear but my client drove down from elgin and and we had testimony from mine and my client and so i think that for those reasons the trial courts in each county reached the right conclusion even if you don't agree with how they got there and also that the the we had a trial and the trial there was correct in terms of the outcome as well the motion for transfer venue was properly granted the the outcome of the trial was proper the motion to vacate was properly fees and costs associated with the trial that everybody went to make it worth homes and so for those reasons your honour's i would ask that you are firm the trial courts of courts county and champagne county thank you because  initial analogy that i presented with the generator mr once and his agent down to get the generator say he got in a car accident on the way back next generator was was destroyed when he still be liable for conversion then got to go to california to try the case i mean that the place where they have an account the bank account where they have their money at usually has one foot so you can access your bank account from multiple places than a t m online extatic but you have an account in one place and when that's those funds are removed from that account that is the place in which the conversion curves so the answer to my question is yes yes or no i mean your shoe a holder in due course i we've been allowed to present our evidence at trial i believe we would have shown the judge that there was a viable legal theory for conversion here therefore i asked that first and foremost that the motion for transfer of venue