we don't contest this case people can with the constitutional judgement and constitutionally what made it unconstitutional where it would cause that to violate my client's to process rights to close the microphone i'm sorry was when the city of chicago informed my client without prior notice and with no opportunity for a hearing that in order to release the lien that they had filed on my client's property my client would have to pay some protection so what happened here is when the city refused to release its lien it interfered with my client's ability to sell its property and it better than kew agreed to pay pay this money you had to we specifically alleged that we paid it under protest and that the city refused to to reduce the amount the city insisted on a number we had a contract to sell the property at that point in time so under duress we paid the amount do you think the original was wrong no i think the original lean in the judgment was constitutional it was when they demanded extra money is when it became unconstitutional not when they demanded when they refused something they were entitled to the post judgement interest i'm not quarreling that you're on it they were tried to get paid for the judgment amount and they were entitled to get paid for the post which meant interest and there was nothing wrong with their demand for that because when we narrowed down to the you got the amount owed and interest one percent i think so we're not trying to lift what's left is they demanded that they get paid for their collection of us how much is that roughly around or i would think it's about fifteen hundred dollars here when you subtract the post judgment so it's not even about twenty one hundred dollars about fifteen hundred there's clearly though your honor our constitution you're right you know this is just about a class action because no one would litigate over fifteen federal suit over fifteen hundred dollars i think you're right about it the only expeditious way to bring a suit like this is if you do it as a class otherwise into that's what the lawyers  of ours they want to pick pay off their fees that's why that's my class actions are parata normally we also let wrought by the lawyers the lawyers think it up to the lawyers sue if they're lucky they frequently they're the lawyers and yes sure because the members the classes the little people don't think in terms of green losses little no lawyers come along and they say look remember that class little people in this case though whose due process rights were violated part of the city of chicago so you chicago seize their property the initials geezer is a seizure as i said was constitutional but then the city would not release that l unless the city got money it demanded that no court no process and found that the city was in tight and in fact we have alleged in the complaint so the statute which allows the city to get its collection costs only allows it to get the collection costs procure the judgment and we even alleged in the complaint that we were advised by the city when we were talking about getting this relief lien released and having this paid off that the city was seeking its cause to both procure and collect so the city is the one that's taking advantage of people here the city had a process that the city didn't follow then how do you explain the district court's ruling the district court ruled that my client voluntarily relinquished or voluntarily paid and that doesn't comport with several things first of all the case was decided on a motion to dismiss we specifically allege that the payment was under protest we've specifically alleged that the payment was under two arrests we gave where the payment was under duress it was a contract to sell the property at that point in time and that real estate contract create a at a time is of the essence clause in addition i think the district court's opinion is it does not comport with the law the illinois supreme court giri said that money paid to lease property under seizure is not paid voluntarily the united states supreme court in mckesson said that money paid to alleviate a seizure is not paid by on terror there's an illinois appellate court case that i cited raintree which i think is right on point which said that money paid under a business compulsion a business necessity is not paid voluntarily the giri court also says that that money paid under protest is not paid voluntarily so the money paid under the relinquishment are something you realize ok you know we're in a period i don't think anybody likes to pay more than they have to and it's always been in kind of a settlement or agreement or compromise or something else i don't know what it would let me go she she's were here but the city does have some money in the game you may say well they didn't have to do anything or they were called time anyway to matter i don't know but i think the city absolutely so the city's main argument is this was a settlement negotiation and i think a city certainly could have engaged in settlement negotiations but when we got to the point in time where the city refuses to release the lien a less it receives payments of amounts that it had not been awarded that's when the deford ation curse that that's when the seizure continues that doesn't stop the city however from saying to my client manusky if you don't settle this case with us if you don't pay us this sum of money we will file an action and get an award of those collection costs but they didn't have an award at the time of the seizure at are allegations that june yes your honor are allegation of was already damaging our allegation in the complaint your honor was that we did not learn about the lien until we had a contract to sell the property that had been sent to  address for a registered agent but again for purposes of this case i'm not contesting that that judgment and the original lien was constitutional but when they seized our property didn't matter how long it was we were entitled to a probation process the city has not put into play any of the balancing of issues of meth use the city has not alleged any exigent circumstances but you do all the money i don't know that all the money if they're seeking or according to this which you just said was correct it failed to challenge the judgment or to pay for more than two years i apologise what i meant was that i don't know that we owe the collection cost over and above which is what i'm complaining of the money that the city had not been awarded i agree your honor the amount of the judgment itself plus post judgment interest we all still would be had in this pre death probation hearing this to me so the city has a in the city statute says that they give us notice and at that point in time they go in in front of an administrative law judge and they would show the administrative law judge their evidence of here's our collection costs and obviously we could argue whether those i guess sense but the initial cost the initial assessment you have an opportunity to guess and i'm asking at that hearing are you told that if payment is and isn't secured by the city that there will be additional interest if if if if unless i'm in and i don't know the answer that you are well wouldn't that give you an indication that you're you're up against potential cost at least it would put our complaint is about notice it's the lack of any type of hearing before the seizure before the deposition before the demand for the increased amounts you're ask you're the only the city can initiate the hearing we asked the city to accept payment of the lien amount plus plus the post judgment interest and the city said no and we've also alleged that it was a widespread city practice that they always say no some sort of predestination process that's the process that they had in place some sort of hearing they gave us no opportunity for any type of hearing ok well thank you it please the court the judgment of the district court should be affirmed just briefly the city obtained a default judgment against man a see the menace he failed to pay we register that judgement in the circuit court and recorded it as a lien on the real property we began collections proceedings at that time but they were fruitless and that moment two years passed masti contacted the city and asked for us to give them a price to get out from under the lien we did so manage to pay that price the suit follows massey alleges that by demanding an amount of while holding a at minutely valid lien the city deprives them of money without due process or that by holding the lien while demanding amount of money we deprive them of their real property rights this morning i'm explaining that no deprivation without d to begin as masti has conceded this morning the underlying lien is itself the result of a constitutional process misty had notice an opportunity to be heard before the judgment was entered and to very quickly go to judge farms questioned the judgement itself says and boilerplate language on page two that the city may see collections cost an attorney's fees if you do not pay the amounts also that we are talking about in this particular case i realized that i actually didn't do the math in the brief is one thousand three hundred ninety four dollars and eighty two cents of collection costs and attorney's fees now that amount was not determined after a hearing because no hearing occurred wouldn't amount but that's roughly my estimate and that can happen in a lot of cases apparently yes and yes absolutely there are other cases like useful i'm like in this case lujah or do you mean the are is your question going to how often are we adding you know having these negotiations about collections cost maternal whatever you want to say i'm just curious of how many potential and how many are actually going on the allegation that they're trying to make is that the operation of this lien which does is a deprivation admittedly but it's a definition with due process that becomes somehow a new deprivation two years later when they ask for a payoff letter as we demand alone combining this demand which is not a deprivation with a deprivation with due process does not somehow turn it into a new to tional depravation you know this is one of the three times this is one of three properties do you know if the other two are current but as far as i know there was actually what i do know i should say is that the building code inspection on june thirtieth two thousand and eleven only found violations at this property i don't know if the two adjacent properties were inspected but i actually imagine they were  i know that you can go to see chicago to work today and search for find a building code violation if you put in these addresses you'll only find the one in seventy nine fifty seven pseudo property tax do we can see here i've not to my knowledge no one know would be difficult for me to imagine how masti would be typical i can sort of see problems but obviously that's not been brief it's not currently here want to get to a moment for this allegations about coercion duress fundamentally the problem with menaces complaint is that they allege they paid under protest and that they were coerced or under duress to pay but everything that  alleged as giving rise to coercion and arrests is its own fault man goes for two years with a publicly recorded lien on its property and it's deemed to have constructive notice the moment that lien is recorded and it apparently was unaware of it but due process does not require actual notice but rather methods recently calculated to achieve notice so we serve them by mail as we are allowed under illinois law the underlying per seeding by sending it to the registered agent at the address list of the secretary of state and then subsequently this publicly recorded leaning is really notice to all the world like all public the recorded property records of the outstanding claim next ministry signs a contract saying we promise to convey this property with clean title in about thirty one days not knowing that they don't have it at that moment but again that's due to their own ignorance and not chargeable to the  accordingly the amended complaint simply restates the legal conclusion of course and arrests and they also add one more thing they say that the city refused to accept a lesser amount than what was demanded in the payoff letter this is does not make court and arrest of the city stuck to its position in this fairly short period of negotiations as we know that payoff letter is dated january twenty seventh and they in fact closed on january twenty eighth if anything the city was effectively accommodating their need for expediency so that they could resolve the matter quickly and continue to make their closing  is distinct from a situation like in mckesson in the context of taxes where if you do not pay not only are there automatic penalties that increase over time but there's even the threat of criminal prosecution for failure to pay taxes and here the letter says pay this amount today and we'll result whole thing otherwise essentially we can take you to court and get that amount that we didn't we weren't more generous in these brief negotiations is not a constitutional concern just very quickly i want to know there's a doesn't appear to be much confusion about the voluntary payment doctrine and lot of it because my colleague referenced geary and raintree holmes this morning i would just quickly say that those two state cases are concerning the state law common law defense its actions for refund those are not procedural due process traces at all and the cases that we rely on and of the district court cited are due process cases where the question is essentially were you deprived of your property interest or did you choose to give it up so any confusion because they say voluntary payment in both doctrines is merely because in this case the property interest at stake is money of the municipal code two one four one three c and there's a corresponding section of the illinois administrative code that says exactly the same thing or codes as the same things it's a i think the whole thing and basically they're reading this statute that says prior to being fixed by hearing officer as before the city can even ask for it under their reading of that statute which is plainly wrong when they asked us for the payoff letter we should have said no you can't have one we're going to take you to court instead we didn't do that if we had alternately not come to an agreement out of court for an amount owed then that's the process that we would have been able to follow i also know that that statute allows either going back to the department of administrative hearings or going to a court of competent jurisdiction and as we already ha improve city only had a right to collect the amount of the original judgment and post judgment interest there was no negotiation they refused to release their lien unless they were paid money which they had not been awarded they could have gone back to court to get their collection cost afterwards but they had already seized our property at that point don they needed to release it they could go to court any time after they want we were entitled to a pre death probation remedy a pre procedure they didn't give us one but they're talking about bike being able to go in afterwards is a post deprivation remedy and that's not proper under the constitution in this instance and as far as the state cases that we cited are ri real property in illinois and our right to our money is both a creature of state law and federal law but we cited the supreme court mckesson case money paid to alleviate a seizure is not a volunteer thank you ok well thank you very much