clearly from the picture it is absolutely crystal clear it is a single family home and if some of the families living there it's probably illegal tell me what do we have to set in order for you to win this case i feel they have to go back for th i'm a resident there that's totally conclusory in has no facts it doesn't say i sleep there i own it it has three bedrooms and this one is mine right and this one is my daughters of so it is nothing that we would normally see for residency challenge in cops say i search the wreck public records myself and this is the address to keep showing up for me you never went to let's say oak park which is what shows up on my driver's license on my insurance and always so the public records and you never ever went foreclosure defendant to his malicious intent from instructing every member of his or her family to answer the door and continually say we are tenants we don't know who that person is you know you don't like  by one time let's say to do it six times where do we go from there why you're not are in this i know you dress through so we mean that the presumption i think everyone's entitled to make is the person has fled the jurisdiction and that happens all the time they never show up here's ok and then there was a surplus which almost never happens and the issue has been raised as to whether or not this case has any wife's because you didn't provide  creditor which is yet someone else that you finally actually owes money to and they're not fear they didn't participate in the briefing of the case and if you win this case what happens you know somebody's going to call back the money from the surplus so how  quash until after the motionless catchall what do you think me if you happened just when you were in front of the judge on the confirmation you didn't say to the judge i'm put i'm fully intend to file a motion therefore under rule three zero three c which requires that service not only be on all parties in the underlying matter but any other party and title by a lot of notice i would argue that the interests of the third party better are particularly at issue here where if this court chose not to remand but why they would now be in the and the judgment creditors who are not before you have lost the opportunity to argue that they are entitled to keep the money and that we cannot unwind this and make better therefore i think that it is proper as the standard for a dismissal with failure to provide notice under three or three is prejudiced of the parties i think the prejudice in this case is  obviously i can't argue with feminists positions but without state guessing what they would be there are definitely problems is what mr wright check proposes that there would be a direct clawback order the single judgment creditor who does not have necessarily half the resources arafat has to turn over money that i to work pointed out might already be spent and we cannot unwind this deal and create the status quo therefore i do think that this court should dismiss the appeal on the grounds that there was no pro let me let me jump to the service issue yes ok and i yes mr a check you know the question of what what standard are we going to have to adapt to not just in your view but the do we have to go out more than once if the person interest the investigators are qualified people who have experience and that we are they team it's a waste of resources to go fast they should have some a few more affidavits obviously we do one decision because this is this is one case but i have to see this all the time every motion of washington that came in a publication was some variation of this leak and it's exactly know this first hand up to say in the record where he met him whether he was standing on the sidewalk in front of the place whether he answered he didn't it it was nothing in the indicated to the answer the door he met this person who said he's authentic there was nothing to indicated that there was this other person this person said that they had never heard of mr there's no one ski that he that they don't know anybody by that name at this address at what would you if you go back is the assumption then that somebody else might answer the door and just proof this person i think that there's there is a another time with your b s and we can see that it's not so on us but i don't think that except the person who said i had never heard of this person lived at that the record search show the social security number didn't show a place in your experience basically is a collection often you have people with records like this who end up the you know what's the really answer is it because they fled to the world went back to a different country or they i have tried to make no paper trail of where they live some people have stood on their porch and said i don't live there and it is the defendant himself avoiding service some times they have gone to live with a relative they've never that's now been resolved but the fact is that it is very easy to have a record where i have a case right now you that they no longer there so as diligent as the process servers are in seeking out other information there has to be a balance between what they view and reality on when they go to a property and what the database share but i think because addition your honor i mean if as contends all it takes to do is stand up and say i could have been found then that vitiates to a six completely because you can't account for anything except constant process constant attempts sitting outside he and waiting to see if someone other than a person and countered by the process server shows up a property there has to be some accounting for the fact that publication is considered a form of service has been h server and then a decision as to whether or not it was realistic to go back to crawford and why interrupt it not realistic to go back to the property i would concede that that probably should have happened but it is not sufficient the it is not sufficient to say the publication was merited here there was sufficient information your honor i do believe that in the case of publication it was justified misc our c n n made a diligent effort to locate mistress lenski his response is not michael please emphasis on the brief i would like to point out in this case that reliance on the wife if you look at the record of the case you'll see that the wife signed a mortgage as i'm on the best of well so i don't know that she would have any interest in the property at all and you know the idea that they went to the wife if the wife was something from how she thread he doesn't know the last name we don't know what name she asked and there are more than one name listed in the record of the case with the affidavit of the skip tracers lists three different variations of his right so what i'm saying is when the person that her said you know this person we don't know what name she might you know they might know him a shredder or alp you know what i mean so we can't be sure when they asked what name what what the person responding to you know we don't know what