here stories denied our petition for a tax based upon emotional is filed by mr hamilton and mr mack just to frame the issue briefly we believe that you feel in this case is limited so to wi becomes owner of a property for purposes of attaining to a taxi the crux here is did my client dealer service have an ownership interest in this property which precluded him or it from  obtaining a taxi so by way of a little bit of a history the taxes issue in this case were taxes that were sold two thousand and twelve taxes on a piece of property in jersey county that were sold at the taxes on november fourth two thousand and thirteen our interest in that property is not attached by virtue of a second mortgage that we obtain from the owner until april second of two thousand and thirt there's been a lot of back and forth in the different briefs about two specific cases one of which is candlewick lake association from one thousand nine hundred five which is a second district case and then a fifty a street case hundred ninety five bailey person in america bank and trust we don't necessarily have an issue with candlewick in the sense that can we just basically says that if you have an ownership interest in a piece of property you cannot leapfrog over anybody goes a little bit further and says you are not allowed to go to a tax sale by the tax or to pick it and then get a tax deed if you have an ownership interest in the property and it goes on to say and define an ownership interest in the property as for purposes of obtaining a tax the ownership interest is defined as any interest being attached to the property on january first of the year for which the delinquent taxes were sold the tax well as having any sort of pretax interest and if that's the way that justice is a reading candlewick i would just reiterate to the court that we did not have a pretax sale interest in the property taxes every issue here were for two thousand and twelve two thousand and twelve tax or take we had no interest in the property as of january first of two thousand and twelve we didn't acquire an interest in the property until we recorded our mortgage in april of two thousand and thirteen so under the bailey toward the interest the ownership interest attaches as of january first of the year for which the taxes are sold in this case two thousand and twelve we didn't have an interest either in january of two thousand and thirteen our interest in attach until april of two thousand and thirteen so but again we are only proceeding on the tax the petition for the two thousand and twelve taxes so i don't believe that we have any pretax sale interest in the property by virtue of what our board actually attached to the proper so i think our situation if you look at the case in belize analogous to the same situation that happened in that case and that is that mr bailey who obtained an interest in a property in hundred one subsequently finds out that the taxes have been sold for nine hundred ninety it's not until he finds out that the taxes are sold that he fears that he's going to lose his interest in the property goes to the tax buyer buys a certificate stakes and sign for the certificates from the tax buyer then appeals with pretty quick to the court for a tax deed and the court says yes you're able to get a tax deed in this case because your ownership interest didn't attach to that property until the one nine hundred ninety one lose our interest in this piece of property in jersey county that we go to see her investments and say we want to take an assignment of those tax or to fix because we didn't ownership interest at the time to twelve or so all we did have an ownership interest in the property the time the two thousand  so based upon the bailey case which we believe is the only case addresses the issue of timing it specifically states january first of the tax year for which the taxes are sold in this case  because of the what you're suggesting is the person's definition of work that interests me or when to detach that is correct yes we believe that the bailey case allows us to do what we did which was basically out of fear for losing just like the bailey case out of fear for losing what we had an interest in we chose to take the stature to its from the original buyer and then petition for the taxi understand well and i think that's what judge pistorius reiterated and focused on was focus i think that that was the issue that mr hamilton raised was an equity issue it's not equitable for somebody to step into the shoes and joe over leapfrog other interested parties however we believe that the bailey case supports our position in the fact that it specifically defines when you actually acquired ownership interest we did not have an ownership interest in two thousand and twelve nor did we have an ownership interest in january of two thousand and thirteen therefore we were by furch you up that case we were within our legal means to them by those tax or chip it's from saber investments and their petition for the taxi in may of two it what he says no you can't it's a longstanding principle of equity this is the case of candlewick it this is exactly what this issue is about it says that the owner of it or a mortgage e having the interest that they do on the property cannot acquire the property by taxi if they pay the taxes they redeem effects they don't get a tax so it's not as if they don't have a remedy i mean when the property sells are going to be entitled to the taxes but that the amount of money that they're to get during the sale but the case is expressly a point it goes back to cases from the eight hundred s i mean this is been a principle of law for a long time it's one of the reasons why you don't see too many tax deep proceedings where u s bank for example tries rejected the position of the opposing party in that case of which they side to the statutes it paved to because of the way we interpret statute even though we have an interest in this property we should be able to take actually the court rejected that argument the the argument that that the text the petitioner makes here seems to be that we're talking about two thousand and twelve taxes they had no interest in a property on january first two thousand and twelve and as such they are not an owner of the property and under their interpretation the statute says they're not an owner of the ought to be able to proceed with a tax to this is wrong i mean they clearly had an interest in a property of the time to try to take x and all agree that they were in an owner of the property on january first two thousand and twelve in fact they're not an owner now mean they have a non ownership interest in the property but haven't acquired their how you would describe what they hear in january of two thousand and two oh well i think there is no interest at all no interest at all right there not ownership interest or rosen two thousand and thirty when they took a mortgage and such when they bought a bank mortgage and they bought bank liens so that they clearly had a non ownership interest in a property of such time as they redeem the taxes and at such times they asked the court for  a principles of equity say no that party doesn't get to take a taxi otherwise every bank would just run it pay the taxes and just take it back to the why would they go through a foreclosure and the reason it becomes important is because if somebody does have to go through foreclosure there's at least some chance that some party is going to come in and pay the full amount of property in an owner might even have a surplus coming to them and in this particular case kerry re as an equivalent just in a property if because if this property can be sold she might well stand to get some of the proceeds half the proceeds will go to david gray and pay off his debts and we have no problem that the other half could end up going to carry rates of there is an equitable interest of kerry re as somebody with an ownership interest in that pro you there that's the reason for that for this process is because you know for closure there is at least a theoretical chance that the owner is going to get something out of it if there's a surplus all the other lead holders are going to get something out of it otherwise all the leaders of be a race to the courthouse to see you is going to pay the taxes and then they try to get in ahead of the body and take a taxi that would completely undermine the whole purpose of that statute start with the purpose of the statute is to make sure that somebody pays the taxes so that the county is not hung out  dry that's all it's designed to accomplish and so once they pay those taxes they're just a party and redemption and they're entitled to those taxes their title get that money back if this property sold or osha but all the issues i mean we might prefer we go through every detail of the statu you've got the revenue act you got the property tax code it doesn't go any place if it's got nothing to do with the issue under longstanding settled law you cannot is a lien or a mortgage they c it's set forth in the statute and in a scavenger tax sale you can't have an interest in a property you can't have an interest in any property that's a tax or you have to file an application to get a visit it's a much more honorific process but all of the discussion about the this bailey case and bailey all that does is in the lightness as to what who might be an owner of the property based on a situation where somebody sold property and then there was a dispute about who is supposed to pay the taxes and the buyer of the property end up paying the taxes they try to get a tax deed and at the last minute somebody redeem the taxes and so about the only thing that that case really stands for is that the taxi buyer wasn't able to get a they can now they can bring an action against them for the images attorneys fees and so on so that's about the only thing that that case tells us you know works there was a guy named paul there was a guy named bailey in the court seems to say well they both had an ownership interest in property in a particular time but it doesn't shed any light on this case at all so other than to reiterate what i've said my brief unless the panel has questions i would see what little time i have to my the other party mr ray you  certainly understand mr hamilton and mr manx position that this is a matter of equity and it's not fair that we be allowed to step in it tax or to picket in this particular case and i think a lot of that has to equity doesn't play a part in this particular case this is a legal argument up until bailey nobody had defined what ownership interest what can we define what ownership interest was in it say a mortgage she anyone with a lien on the property has an ownership interest in the property they only went on to say anyone with an ownership interest in the property or mortgagee a lien holder has an interest and there by virtue of that interest can't titian for a tax certificate a tax sale however the bailey court went on to defy when the ownership interest actually attaches to the property that was something that wasn't addressed and can't i don't think there's anybody who's going to dispute that anybody's house who has a mortgage on it that us bank has an interest in that property and therefore they can't when somebody defaults on their mortgage to go and get the tax certificate from a tax that's not what happened here wasn't until lately where the court says the ownership interest attaches on january first of the year for which the taxes are sold that was finally defined in one thousand ninety five by the appellate court the fifth district by virtue of that case we did not have an ownership interest in this piece of property in just two thousand and twelve when those taxes went up for sale our ownership interest again was attached by virtue of a second mortgage that was recorded able second to two thousand and thirteen this is a legal argument where hang our hat on the bailey case and the bailey case specifically for the first time defines what exactly he ownership interest means in terms of when it attaches to the property and it taxes on january first of the year for which it's taxes went up for sale in this case it