or the reason that the property owner had not been served with a take notice was a process server as reflected from the record had been out of the property numerous times knock on the door had no response and was unable to personally serve the take notice properly that was referred to in the trial court decision as a failure to obtain personal all text the proceedings are strictly an interim proceed they require no personal jurisdiction no service of a summons upon a property owner or other person interested in the property yes they receive court choir jurisdiction over the property and once an order for sale of the property due to delinquent taxes attaches or is only no jurisdiction to proceed if the real estate taxes were paid prior to they said you could look it up using i said love em another case where there was an arab league west versus anderson was a collateral attack and the order issuing the tastee this out but it was  opposed to a neighboring community and that was a as we pointed out the county clerk's address and phone are first kind of information that's relatively easily obtainable i think by anyone it's not something that would be purview or be in the purview only of council but a phone number i think is something relatively easily obtainable i don't think that that's the sort of error that should rise to the level of allocating the section twenty two notice but even if it did mandated by the provisions of the so of not only the property tax code but a section of the court a civil procedure and that's also the lesson of smith versus d r g this court's opinion holding specifically that argument was rejected by the court and handed vs as i do mr clerk i want to make sure i understand some chronology here the the the unpaid taxes were purchased in two thousand and seven is that correct i believe and then the redemption period expired in two thousand and eleven me my no staying over for two thousand and eleven what i'm trying to sort out is the purchase in and then in the subsequent years between seven and eleven what happened taxes were paid on well between the date that my client bought the taxes and the date that and in the written and yes in the written record the taxes were never paid back there was an intervening purchase of subsequent taxes that were so d prior to my client's application for filing his petition for take my client redeemed all the subsequent taxes in order to obtain their and once the unpaid taxes are purchased is there an obligation to buy the purchaser to act in a certain timeframe to notify the well when the initial original tax when there is a requirement an initial take notice he issued that he checks purchaser delivers to the county clerk county clerk nails it out and then the period of redemption starts to run period redemption is fixed for various times it can be extended at the option of the tax purchaser up to a maximum of three years from the date of the sale or purchase of the i pay taxes but no more than that three year time  simple search of the records of public records would have shown there was a release of mortgage that had another name involved in well the release of the mortgage issue it goes to it in issue that has been raised by  property and the like commonly when i look at them i look at the title commitment because but then i like to search the county recorder's records myself well and i and that's informative but i need to know what happened in this case well my my point is this is that the fact that there is a different name it was a different mail to name and the mortgage release is a name the pops up outside the chain of time and the interested parties that you need to notify in and take the proceedings have to be somewhat within court when it was raised in the motion to reconsider it did not address the issue at some level twenty to eighty relief to the appellant is appropriate if this case is or firmed or this piece of paper and you're going to find this said page eighty eight of the record because this is the notice that's the subject of this proceeding that it's about three and a half inches by one right but you indicated that petitions filed show that the notice is required so i guess it's as required by twenty exactly what i want coming from your honor is that the notice required is under section twenty two of the proceed got a taxi that is has very specific warnings to protect the constitutional rights of the property for example in that twenty to ten notice it's an all letters this property has been sold for going with tax in bold letters it says you are urged to redeem immediately to prevent loss of property and so it's designed to for the the first people of all annoyed to give them notice that they had better do something and you compare it with this notice that was published it has none of those four you're saying twenty to ten versus twenty to twenty the twenty to ten should have been correct and i guess that's this might just be a typo or your quote here which i was getting to was that it's that the twenty to twenty and they have a happy for they are for the property owner and from the legislative scheme and so in this case the property owner was not sure with any of the so as a result the eight mandatory publications the mandatory service of the correct notice was never accomplished so this is more than just the fact that really encourages or could result in a possible conflict of interest probably very specific conflicts of interest as well as other mischief because process requirements is the very entity that wants to take the property from the owner it did the notice that was published comply with section twenty two twenty the statutory requirements just if you people who should date so that they have the opportunity to redeem their property in conformance with the only public policy but in this case the twenty to twenty notices i see it is you will say from that notice that was a fact published does not do that off for instance the distinction is under twenty two ten it has a specific provision that says you may be present at the hearing notice of up an opportunity to be heard but your right to redeem will have already expired back time critical component so that people know they have to do something before cutler talk about how when he gets up here again he's going to talk about the rationale of the appellate court in this case i guess ok deep in since you're not going to be able to get up again do you have problems with the rationale is your basis for affirming different than the basis in looking at the appellate court opinion well i see your honor is part and parcel to this extent the legislature heightened the fire is the one who is doing all this process the legislature wants that property owner to go directly to the county clerk who would be the logical governmental choice to say here's what you have to do to be already in your property and i'm like mr clark i don't think that the property owners should be required to go out and ferret where the addresses of the telephone number of the county clerk is because it's a critical component it say suggesting your honor that because the wrong stuff notice was used is like no notice at all in the one hundred twenty two twenty the impression and the implication is is that the property buyer would fully comply that they would in fact publish the twenty seems that because it was a mandatory publication brings the statutory scheme together and the reason why i think the twenty thousand ten notice is so critical is in that section it says you can do it in the one notice under twenty two ten so you comply there is no those requirements in the statute to do it twenty two twenty notice except for under twenty to forty five which is the compliance component that is before you today so  so the issue that as i see it gets fifty eight next component under twenty to forty five and those are several first is was there due diligence because this court other courts have said you know if you are not diligent it goes to the due process rights as well as obviously to the notice rights and it was a question to ask about the personal inspection of the public records but it was done through the title company but if a person had gone through those public records they would have seen a deed and the deed would reflect the name service on the person who was the owner of the house but what a what a backpack fire did that catch fire went out and in fact looked at the public records  diligent inquiry and after there is nothing in the record and work and there's no factual dispute because we're basing it all of the record of the supreme court of will county as the taxi it was presented and after that especially what more can we do while that thing that you could do more obvious you can knock on that extraordinary bridge door and see if a person is there or you can do is it was done in the low court where they went and looked at the patch records they looked at the voter's records they looked at the house to see if it was bacon or not they have records of that they looked at the deeds in the chain of title which this mortgage was of the king mr mahoney what do we do with the and in twenty two there's four five four and the end is that one proof by the owner that he was not named as a purdy in the section twenty two twenty publication notice and that the purchaser did not make a village an inquiry an effort to serve the person with the notices required sections twenty two ten through twenty two thirty do we have to change into or to accept your arguments one of that's one of the arguments that we presented in the brief that there are instances of a time statutory scheme where it really does mean all but two to address it in the end contact for the ball it's clear based on the divine case that the failure the owner that he was not named as a purdy in the section twenty twenty two publication notice everybody is in agreement that their public option notice was served earl was published and it didn't end then that publication should be or because of the statutory scheme in the legislative it can't but let's assume for a moment that it's not this was the wrong house because the notice intended by the legislature was the twenty nine dollars that was never published and so mrs cornelius name was never in the correct notice which should have been published and so therefore it doesn't comply with saying is that the notice that was published does not conform and the reason there is another reason is that if it was literally rod ott the twenty to twenty hours there would never be a publication of that twenty two ten dollars because it talks about any publication under this section and then they go ape throughout and so i've got believe that our position your hon you really don't have to follow in their opinion the mandatory requirements of this section because they're suggesting that just some notice is all that's required and that's not what the due process rights under our constitution here only asking for the fair opportunity that's allowed in the notices that are required under the tax code act and we believe that the that the property owners  certified mail return receipt requested via the circuit clerk and if the person in rest in the property resides in the county you survey had through the sheriff or with a private process server that if they reside out of the county there's been a discussion about what twenty to twenty requires to be published this statute quite frankly to quote counsel from an earlier pace is somewhat byzantine when it comes to publication requirements too because it talks about publication in three different sections but in twenty to twenty it says for specifically here's what you need to notice or what you need to set forth in your publication notes twenty two thirty eight makes the reference that that notice has to be published with regard to the known occupants and not record claimants it's not a separate notice that's part of the twenty two twenty nodes twenty two fifteen or first of the twenty two ten notice is being made via the twenty two twenty notice but the twenty two twenty notice was designed simply to be a complete copy of the twenty ten notice in the newspaper then i would respectfully suggest that the legislature should not use this short little list that sets forth these other items it doesn't make sense to have a whole statute that sets or a specific list of items that have to be in a stage if you simply are supposed to repeat the format of an earlier notice there's been some mr mahoney discussed some of the notice problems particularly with the divine case relating to due process the divine case is actually distinct from the checkmate totally earth in its proper research did not catch the property interest of one of the owners and left a record owner's name out of the twenty two ten notices and out of the test there is no support showing that the record owner was not named in the twenty to twenty publication notice and since the public and since the record owner was mean the twenty three twenty publication notice section twenty two forty five decision and the other two sections again relate to the property was it exempt from taxation or the taxes that have been paid before the order for taxi so the only support there is twenty two forty five four and that's the only past is now in serious j address lack of the courthouse address i would say i'm not i'm not buying it because i don't believe that you have a marketable title i would think that the title would always be subject to attack on the world at some point in time when somebody figures out whether it's two years five years ten years down the road and mr clarke yes you don't dispute the twenty two twenty was incomplete i believe twenty two twenty was complete i would highly to twenty four maybe maybe maybe i'm not attracting the right section number but i thought one noticed that mr mahoney referred to had the attempted to be served its use me attempted to be sent certified mail return receipt requested ok i'll go back and double check but let me ask you this mr mahoney made the argument that there was no diligent any quarry the actual enquiry just came out of the first district facts somewhat similar to this case where a property owner lost her property to a tax the proceeding and in that situation the t deed applicant or petitioner was the take notice is to be placed or serviced certified mail and the service with the fourteen no one motion has limited by twenty to forty five even though there was no notice to the property owners either certified mail or the that the service because of the wrong address on the attempts to service g enterprises l l c will tax l l c versus ensign cornelius i will be taken under advisement why is agenda twenty