they characterize the argument first this is characterized as a contract with hard in orcus title to provide closing services to home buyers purchasing holds you had the second is that the issue is that we were not to be charged allowed to charge fees for a second time the first comment is simply not true we were not contracting with hard to provide services for home buyers we contracted with h i don't think the government's over content you can charge for title insurance right well they always allowed us to read through it but i don't now contend that you couldn't charge for a pile yes so we did charge we were allowed to contract directly with producers in charge them some fees was any part of your four million dollar request a request for damages for inability to sell title insurance to buy it is not well what about the title search that you know was to me the most critical issue because the contracts were interpreted differently minnesota in wisconsin missouri we were not allowed to charge rudy work through a search which is a significant part origin of art and then it gives a distinction between the three contracts they were interpreted differently by what we were allowed to charge more thorough search in wisconsin minnesota but the problem that you have it seems to me is that i don't see your complaint as raising this as a separate issue and i doubt see that the summary judgment papers released th i would suggest at least appeared in my affidavit the distinction between the two contracts i think the complaint could have been clear well what was it was raised in connection with the summit as a motion services which is i think with and part of this is highlighting their release or it is different but there's also a distinction between services charged for closer for a salary as opposed to the buyer there's much more traditional work that goes into charging for closing for buyers are understanding of the nature that are the basis for the dispute it and this is why i'm treated so extensively there's a regional difference in the west coast and we did business in california arizona there is one closer that handles both sides of the transaction the midwest is clearly different in that two closers performing two separate functions are other the lenders documents you know allison point out california arizona losers charge about three times more than in the midwest because there is so much more work and you know our initial dealings with how we were dealing with their california so that's always been my understanding of the nature  i would like to comment just briefly on the jarl a case which the in which the judge raised there is one difference i think that was overlooked i think the judge looked far too much at industry practice when the totality of circumstances needs to be need to be considered we are using industry practices to create an ambiguity here i'm attempting use industry practice going beyond the literal reading of the contract looking at exactly what the parties were and did and what they were discussing the last point i want to highlight  i lost both cases but when in with there in force managed actions and they won their cases i think i can guarantee you that there is nobody in the state of minnesota who the real estate chance but what i understand that the arguing is there in order to write out all insurance we had to do a more thorough and costly title search and that we should have been allowed to charge for that but that at least one of the states that's another question what's your response to i'll start by saying it wasn't raised below in the summary judgment brief that starts on page eight fifty six there is no reference to title searches and there's really no reference to what he above the cost of the physical closing work that northwest title claims were not allowed to be charged in the three states as for of that additional title search that we're now hearing of a title search is within is the owner of a foreclosed home it's hard to see why a second title search after the first one conducted by northwest title would be necessary to confirm what was known very soon before  the closing in addition the act the question of how high and not allow northwest to make certain charges is something that i think would be handy for the court know the the contracts point out that there's a quality assurance process at section c five q and one settlement forms an example was it appendix three ninety eight were submitted by northwest title and hyde reviewed a spot check of these type of forms to see the types of trees that were being charged and in that spot check would notice that certain number settlement closing costs were being charged to buyers that when they shouldn't have been charged and that's why there was a consistent interpretation contrary to what northwest hardily is arguing the affidavit hud and told that it could not charge closing costs to buyers and in addition mary casper who worked for a contractor of hundreds said she was instructed by had not to allow statement prior may and obtain title insurance from any title insurance company chooses that the contractor request title is to inform the buyer that it can purchase title doctor and yet you about that i would i would read this because it's a separate section has any and all licenses insurance certificates or permits as stated in section seat paragraph or one t local laws and so it's referring to that the contractor would be our interpretation and they are insurance necessary to act to perform their their business but section before one is explaining that the costs of conducting a closing something that benefits both the buyer and the seller and it was intended by hud that there was a check to of selling homes in the manner that it would promote home ownership to obtain error free closings to have deeds properly recorded in northwest stated in its amended complaint that there were certain tasks that were the type provided to buyers by settlements or providers and they were title search especially assessment searches career fees wiring fee recording fees and fees for conducting the physical closing with the fire during which the sale documents are presented executed notarized that's it and it's forty nine to fifty in paragraph twelve and those are part of northwest due east in section paying the buyers closing costs that would otherwise pay in section c for two or before two makes it clear that except as explicitly allowed in paragraph c for four to two below the purchaser lender and or seller shall not pay any additional that would demonstrate that a title search was not at that if field was not allowed by had there is no evidence that can support its claim that it was damaged by the government not allowing that fee if that in fact happened in fact the bigger issue is that the contracts don't place a dewey on hud at any point to allow northwestern charge fees be it for closing costs or title insurance and northwest has not demonstrated how the government can preach a duty in the contract when there is no duty to allow the fees its nature to be charged and it is certainly agree that they have the right to charge for as we see it the claim is really there they're claiming that they have a business relationship with the buyers and that the government has in some way interfered with that separate relationship not that there's a duty in the contract to allow any charges to be made and actual language of the contract and northwest has not argued that a seller never can pay a buyer's closing costs and nor has it shown that it relied on a competing interpretations of any words within the contract when entered into the contract there's no  summary judgment that within a brief period after the contracts were signed hud informed northwest title that could not charge closing costs and for those reasons we for the benefit of representing sellers and to take language and same overall supposed to do this for buyers and because it's all part of the closing i think that is a little bit sloppy as it is as it relates to actual real estate practices where there is clause that is interpreted that would require that should be stricken from being for being you know legal or requiring a legal act so i think there is a a real danger of getting everything to tumors between doings of sellers and duties of buyers we were always very clear on what we were supposed to do the buyers were to be an entirely separate relationship which we were encouraged to pursue so we could earn more