because the sale price was i conscionable three the sale should not have been approved because justice was not done contrary to the statutory requirement and further service on the defendants based on the general wrong primarily because you did not follow dan off which is the illinois supreme court's decision which is the case most clearly on point and it's a supreme court decision and i don't have to say to you that you've got a court should follow the supreme court's decision actually helps our position because the right way to do this if indeed there is a mortgage foreclosure problem the right way to do it is to have the statute amended and that was the procedure followed in the and a statute in addition i believe that ziska is inconsistent with short kinsley in the brazen cases and those are the reasons why i suggest that it was wrongly decided very i think i would also like to stay on this point though because sometimes we get so involved with the interest sees any particular case in the facts what happened is we don't do the most basic things that we're all taught in law school so prepare for oral argument i decided i should probably supplementary true but matt inconsistent with provisions of this kept so if the supreme court cannot make a rule inconsistent with the provisions of the state statute i submit that the chief judge of the chancery division of the circuit court should not be allowed to make such a rule that has to with inconsistency with inconsistent that well because because the statute requires a discretion the rule takes away the authority of the court to exercise its discretion in each and every case where it simply we're saying is that the problem should have been solved by amending the statute when there was a problem that required bid on their property for more than three hundred thousand dollars why is that then unconscionable since that is looked at real estate by definition i'd suggest it is worth because the record indicates that the loan amount was nine hundred ok and that was filed and it was two page document attached to a motion to extend time motion for continuance as their right that's how it was handled ok aaron were the other eighty pages at least i assume it's in counsel's file as to why i didn't file all thing i had no excuse but i do want to point out that it's interesting to note that in all the breakers there is no attempt to explain why three hundred thousand dollars  i believe under the resolution trust case the court's required to hold a hearing whereby both sides present their evidence whatever it may be that the amount of the bid is conscionable and three eighteen three twenty two specifically requested that the judicial sale conducted be deemed in here by vacated and at that point time following back is when the appraisal was they've the number of other motions were filed know the trial court has the discretion and also the duty to make sure that the sale price is not unconscionable and that is not unjust in order to do that once the appraisal was a matter  in then make it and then my client continues to say it's worth a lot of money if that point the court has a duty as i read the of the case law resolution trust has a duty to hold a hearing court also has discretion should have held a hearing to determine if it was reasonable because there's three pieces of evidence contrary to the three hundred thousand dollar not all that's right title and interest i submit if for no other reason the judgment should be reversed i bet wrong because it had nothing to bit that's the most fundamental principle of the law that parents raise is that this rule violates the statute the section two of two a regarding service and that it affects the substance of rights or add some the section two o two it still requires a motion to be filed still requires a court to enter an order and that's what was done here that's what's on all these cases so i don't think there's any conflict at all  to the extent there is a conflict this service is a matter of procedure courts can adopt rules regarding procedure of practice progress are clearly states in the supreme court found as such there there was not any effort by the opponents made to distinguish this here or to argue for the issues raised by the talents as far as the sale i think first of all it's important two to mention the waiver argument i don't think that's that's a throw away none of these questions were raised attack the sufficient of the price here when they are when they didn't raise in the trial court now they say they raised it by bringing this appraiser appraisal attaching a couple pages of the appraisal which to the court is recognized to a motion  goes to the waiver argument the and the wilcox case cited in our brief that we were given an opportunity the apple e was not given the opportunity to refute these arguments of  aggregate adequacy of price this is a factual issue the there's many reasons why a sale price could be lower than the loan amount or even the appraised value  so there's still no opportunity for us to respond and there was never an opportunity for us to respond which is why the issue of the argument is waived there is nothing in the record with regard to the status of the property taxes there could there could be hundreds of thousands of dollars of on pay property taxes that would reduce the the bet amount there could be seen or liens on the property that computers a bit about there could be the you sign an issue well there are a few components at issue first of all i think the argument by the appellants here is completely opposite to their argument in the there that so if they didn't substitute first that's not the issue that they've raised an appeal they've now shifted their focus and said first make was the better so i think when you're looking at this under the standard of review the  court was clearly under the impression defendant's acknowledged our motion acknowledge the motion to substitute clearly it is to attach the substitute or excuse me the assignment they didn't know about this argument they work making the argument the first case bit so is it weighed well i mean i think it could be with i don't i don't that's not the argument that we're making i think the argument they were making is under the under the name of the acid meet that clearly the action does not abate just based on the assignment and that's that's that's what happened here i mean the whether or not  that the name changed in the certificate of sale of the or c the sale documents was just a function of the court not having actually entered the order of substitution but clearly the assignment had taken place so rickly have proceeded under that assignment record don't realize necessarily the entire value there's going to be a little bit of a a discount sometimes and that's partially for the reasons also that i've mentioned in our waiver article here  and the circumstances here i don't think it does make a difference for again for the reasons that we don't know what we don't know the facts the facts are in the record as to why discussing earlier as we look at the rules one o four a and b the rules are proposed to give the judge canard authority there was no retort as to why those rules gave her that authority and the reason for that is because those rules do not give her that authority and in fact one for a specifically says ill not even the only supreme court does not have that authority my final point in answer to justice cunningham's question regarding surprise if we go back again to the resolution trust case he points out that the owner supreme court even before the one nine hundred eighty seven amendment now that the courts have discretion to approve a judicial sale where the amount bit is grossly inadequate and prior to the one nine hundred eighty seven amendment quotes held that mere inadequacy of price was not enough time and when i for a long time for a number of reasons one simply as i believe justice quinn said earlier is that what's going on in the foreclosure course is a very high volume court difficult to get tigers if you go through this entire record