dismiss and determine that unified met all of illinois pleading requirements under both section eighteen of the i c a and under the illinois code of civil procedure as justice quinn noted your honour's are familiar with the facts and the history of sha one th related documents what this court did not consider and what this court did not address were the pleadings requirements under section eight b that is the issue now pending before this court and in order to answer that issue this court must consider two specific questions first what must any party pleaded in order to maintain a case under section eight b what must they lead we already pleadings phase in th second point this court must address is whether unified met all of those requirements in this case the alternate issue here is did unify and have the right to sue to collect on mr chas debt the answer is identify each and this is this and when i say i should clarify the specific information we're talking about is the date of transfer and the consideration paid for an assignment we're not talking about simply ownership of an account or transfer as of an account or assignments of an account that information needs to be identified under section two dash for a three to your honor's question you were talking about the revisions to the statute that the legislature implemented at the beginning of this year that specifically exempt debt by years from the requirements under section eight b the reason that is noteworthy is because that establishes that debt buyers were never intended to be responsible for the for establishing the amounts paid the consideration s at all your honor that's not what i'm suggesting what i'm saying is that section eight b did not anticipate that a debt buyer would be required to identify at the date of trade transfer and the consideration paid  a transfer for each and every step in the chain of title that's what i'm suggesting certainly section eight b is a political but it is not intended it in this context of this case it was not intended that the requirements of needs to right be identified under section two dash for three the same is true if it's an assignment of of legal title section a b there was different section a b does not apply to transfers of equitable title sectioning be applies to transfers of legal title that is a specific legal term assignments for collection assignments for collection assignments of legal title only for collection purposes that's a different question the three still exists to protect that issue that's what you see on section two dash for three because it absolutely addresses the point and it absolutely addresses justice conner's concern that if you are the individual who has this debt you should be advised of who owns your debt you should be as advised of the chain of title that's what section two dash through three insurers happens it's the sickly requires that the entity who has  any identify each and every single one of those steps without that process the assamese doesn't have the right to sue well let me ask you this question i'm looking at a case called people versus nine seventy seven and i second two forty three which says no dispute about that but we're suggesting the new amendment to the statute implies is that dead bears were never meant to be found to provide all of this information for each and every step in the chain of title they are bound by the statute certainly there is no concern about whether a p was properly addressed in the pleadings inge in the circuit court because they shouldn't apply here but i'm suggesting to justice connors is that there's no statute but the larger point is this that even even if this court considers that section he did apply to death by years at the time in question if your honor disagrees with that we're all for it it's actually he did apply at the time in question you find still met those requirements that's the more important and larger point and that can be seen but again by the language of the statute that's the language that we're all bound by it's the language that the legislature used to clarify its intentions you were correct your honor that the amendments to the statute were not in effect at the time that shot one was to cite it right the second point is though the specific language of that passage said that the quote drafted that the court finds on concerns been in our one remember the case that we should remain and show the consideration and now this is legislature and after there say no you don't have to do then is there that that is correct that is correct right so that is correct and to the extent that that is what the court intended to say that sentence is not it's not a binding statement in the sense that stick to it if that's what the clearly intended to talk about this case and it's sort of my question or it's a by the have similar they sort of advice like they have similar name there is a larger umbrella that has multiple companies and so for example you noted i'm sure you've noticed palisades is there doesn't need to be your honor it's a free market system there can be any number of transfers there can be a single transfer there can be twenty five transfers but that's that's the more important point for this crew to address because say for the sake of discussion there were twenty five sales sales of data not assignments of debt but full sales certainly at that point the only two that asked me for collection is going to have to identify each and every single one of those sales in the chain of title in order to meet the standing requirements under section two deshler three but the question is what would that entity the ask me for collection have to allege in order to proceed on a complaint for collection under section eight b that's the other important point for this court to address at this point in the proceedings this is a leading space these facts have all been a wedge to as required under section eight b under the litigation shall commence that doesn't say specifically that all of the documents establishing that assignment need to be attached to the complete it states they need to exist now we recognize that under sharia law in this court stated very it would depend on the portfolio in the circumstances in each and in each individual case i can't answer that question specifically except as to this case sorry honor but it is worth noting that there is as we point out in the recent federal you for collection that could certainly happen but that does not change the requirement at least as it was in effect at the time of this litigation at the time the complaint was filed that doesn't change the requirement that those transactions still need to be identified even if there were within a related network of companies they still need to identify each transaction of chain of title because as title is transferred whether it's legal or equitable there is a transaction involved so even if the companies are connected and that again speaks to justice o'connor's question about isn't a a debt are entitled to know the specific information about who owns his or her debt that is required under today's for three to dash for three states such question person everything that is required under section two dash for three needs to be included and that includes all of the dates of transfer for each and every step in the chain of title group run as far as truth and trial in the context that we're discussing meaning in the context of this particular case was a deputy is going to have to show the effective date of the assignment for collection and the consideration paid for that assignment and if there is a dispute as to whether or not the debt buyer absolutely they would have to show that consideration paid for that assignment  that's correct that's correct in the posture of this case now with the revisions to section eight point six exactly but as we're talking discussing in the context of this case at trial the debt buyer would have to establish for the assignment for collection would have to establish the on please the court counsel let me start by addressing just as turner's last question what does a debt by debt buyer asked me for collection have to plead i think that under this court's decision zero six of the code of civil procedure and supreme court ruled two eighty two in the case of a small claims require the attachment or incorporation of assignments so that because we is founded and they ought to be attached let me turn to the never was a question before the court namely whether the decision of the trial court was correct either for assignments in alleged in this matter cit purposes of collection only neither of those two complies with a p they don't even come close to cliff's tellus see it's true transaction does not state the consideration on the record a document was filed under seal but if you look at it it contains a number of alternatives and it is not possible the term in which one applies it does not in any way luke be transferred to a not really these are done in writing their account numbers you can redact a field quite easily what is necessary is a page that somebody executes it on the bottom and  the date of this document the cliff palisade stockmen attached to the complaint it's may twenty third two thousand and three which is approximately more than three years prior to the time that citibank allegedly parted itself the future transfers if they are in writing or not documented at all they're not before the court they were not attached to any complaint or any of the multiple there is no allegation on your part is there that mr shaath suffered from a sharp practice is there and that somehow he did not always sixteen thousand dollars to citibank before his debt was sold and resold the result around with you when we filed two six one hundred motion we admit the allegations  consumers right it is to protect consumers among us in among other ways by assuring and creating a record they have the purty soon you consumer to enforce an obligation in fact either owns the obligation water has a legal i think you mean the court reviews the judgment and the reason it and i think the reasoning of the of the circuit court was that none of the four complied if any of the four don't comply  right i think it has to be affirmative let me put to one side for a second whether the first two have to comply i think they do but the last two clearly do not that they did it if you compare it be with what is in these two documents they don't comply in fact they're not really assignments at royal they are contracts contemplating future assignments if after uniform day and cliff's allegedly acquired the sho authorities furthermore the first two assignments are not claiming to be the world all of these transactions are carried out through documents so i don't think we get to the issue of whether you could have an oral assignment that's not how entities like this do business there is a writing they just didn't want to produce it and we then get through a series of other complaints in which in finally comes to light that  dealing with a rage the assignments are collection the complaints repeatedly state up to the second amended complaint that plaintiff was a purchaser of the debt when that was plainly not the case and head  attempted to defend the case of self and i think even most lawyers would not be from the sufficiently familiar with what to look for to realise that there is something wrong here and there was something wrong we wound up with to last two assignments for collection purposes which on their face to don't comply with a p so i think that and that's in there we should be where the court and the judgment below has to be a for with respect to the question rather i think that when i am going to find c c r files its original complaint claiming to be a purchaser and it's now admitted that it is not a purchase of it is exactly the kind of abuse that the legislature sought to curb the correct and total chain of title should be alleged and insofar as based on documents which is the case here attached so that the court may determine what interest in made a payment on their right i'm sorry look looking at pages of twenty three twenty four of your brief where you're just discussing which was a sign of public possibly wish to protect consumers from having multiple suits filed against them after they paid their debt that's because the whole purpose of this is prophylactic it is to prevent the wrong party from suing and the kind of documentation we have here right raises red issue and that's why you have a statute which sets forth what is required i let me with medical debts you have a series of related debts there are as agencies which take assignments for collection and file suit in their name on medical debts and often will have multiple  billion it is our position that we are you have a purchase followed by an assignment for collection that does trigger each b and the end eight b itself requires a showing of the complete chain of title the language of eight b which was again understanding doesn't apply to you would it would that have changed the requirement the puck ability of eight b to the transaction from cliffs no no under the last two if they're intended to be assignments for and i don't think it applies i think that when you're dealing with a regulation of the form of a contract you don't apply it retroactively i also think that based in its very document was not a parish i understand it and then charges of that in the future on every single credit card debt for the collection agencies and that's what we're dealing with here they must receive all the original paperwork abuses in the state of illinois other states are imposing requirements like this in the end is not shut down the collection industry over estimate really is th that instrument sets forth dates consideration that has to be included and at the very least it mester show that the specific account was transferred in some manner that permits identification of  where people are sued and debts which have been paid otherwise resolved discharged in bankruptcy and there are problems and proper documentation is first a solution to those problems that avoids them and second if there is a problem and permits identification of how it occurred and who was responsible for one point about law the case should restrict what we can do care on the overall industry i'm the problem with full created by forward flow agreements is it's an agreement to transfer debts over some future period of time and it is the more transfers that take place and you can have for example one of the things that unified does is take packages of debts  from somebody like citibank break them up and sell them to people that are interested only in the for example illinois debtors the more transfers and the more transfers that are not simply of the whole portfolio the identification of who is responsible for the problem and can you can it but not really suggesting are you mr holman that we should reach the too ready to issue what goes on in small claims court road correct this is not a like your original complaint in the section one page complaint with an affidavit that was not accurate and set forth a chain of purports to be an absolute purchase when it isn't and is just totally inaccurate and settlements last point about forward flow agreements the concern is that the concerns that up i been identified by courts including business services which specifically discussed the issue it clearly stating the data transfer on on assignment the concern is not having multiple dates that could mean different things not having for example in business services march seventh of one thousand nine hundred seven at the top of the document in march seventeenth of one thousand nine hundred seven at the bottom of the document and that is the situation that mr adelman was just describing when someone's doing a skit chase trace and it looks like it's unclear about exactly when what was transferred and how and the dates are arbitrarily changed that's not the concern with a forward flow agreement a fluid flow agreement simply identifies the date of transfer as the date that the accounts are actually transferred to that final person in the chain there's not confusion about the specific date the other point it's worth noting  recovered that's why it's considered proprietary it's given to the trial court the trial court had no issue with the contents of that document it did specifically identify the amount as opposed again to business services which is rich stupid that the suggested suggestion that the consideration paid is there were valuable consideration that is inadequate that does not specifically state the consideration now to justice thomas question about public policy and you raised a point mentioned by one of the that this will certainly severely affect the entire business industry of the entire collection industry in illinois yes it will impact that industry because what this court is considering doing is saying that under section eight beat each and every single chain of transfer the title of a debt for each and every chain of transfer the ask me for collection at the end of that chain is going to have to identify all of the kind sense of the contracts that went before it now certainly for an asinine for collection that's required under section eight b for the final assignment for collection purposes no one is disputing that the question this court needs to address is whether that needs to ident be identified when citibank sells to company a for an amount of money that it's considered proprietary and therefore it's not disclosed and then company a sells to company b a full transfer  there's no question about transfer of title but the consideration paid again is considered proprietary in a contract that is signed in south dakota that has nothing to do with illinois law what you're suggesting is now when you're talking about the transfer from company  assignment for collection purposes only to you to find at the end of the chain of the title under which is bound by only well what you're suggesting is that unifying will have to go back and address each and every single one of those transfers earlier in the chain of title will unif have to identify them yes that's required under two dash were three does unified have to identify the dates of those transfers yes again identified under two dash for three there's no question that the transfers occurred but the section collector in this complaint in the first amended complaint the only complaint that is it issued before this court the specific information that would be necessary to state a claim under eight b as for assignment for collection purposes all of that was alleged all of that was alleged in the documents by stating the date of transfer that was in the forward to the agreement and by identifying the amount of consideration paid for that transferred that was included in the document under seal and the court found that acceptable that was presented in the underlying case and show one and it's still under seal with the circuit court in the circuit court said that's adequate that states the consideration paid all of that information was provided and it was provided specifically to address concerns this court raised in show one suggesting that eight be applies to each and every assignment for collection could that be considered an assignment for collection if this court were to determine that it was an assignment for collection because it was a transfer of legal title only then in this particular case all of the requirements of section eight be for pleading under section eight b have been addressed and the same information was included in the documents that transferred the final transfer of the final sales the trial court determined that those sales did not include all of the information identified in section eight that's correct now again just as when you were asking what evidence is there that mr shaw paid his  pleaded it's not i'm not suggesting i think it's an excellent question i'm not suggesting that i disagree with the question i'm saying here asking for specific evidence and in front of the trial court at the pleadings phase that's not the information that you need to give to the trial court this is requires that certain documents exist before a debt collection files a collection action that's what we're talking about in this case in order to comply with section eight b unified identified all of the information required under section eight b and attached it to the complaint for a science work collection and by doing so they met all of the statutory requirements to proceed past a motion to dismiss what we are asking this court to do is reverse the trial court's ruling granting the motion to dismiss and allow you to fun to go back and litigate this case in its entirety if there are any other questions  there that's correct but that profit line is very much proprietary because it depends on each individual debt collector and what their profit margin is it's a market that depends on some specific mathematical calculations and it depends on things far above my pay grade that i can't entirely understand because computers do most of the calculations he employed only thing though is that is the do you agree that the debtor has the right to know but that amount is in order to calculate any of those numbers and that was done here the debtor was given that information and you say he's yes you think it is easily ascertainable to the debtor yes from looking at that information yes it is easily ascertainable to the debtor is it a matter of public record no