we are now going to move to the fourth case in the warning case number eighteen dash nineteen fifteen united states versus eat investment propert apparently at some time beginning in two thousand either failed to pay income taxes or or paid less than what he owed mr raines lived until two thousand and nine which time he passed away from the time stopping in two thousand up until of the letters his name is carol two well they left out one of the also and later in the year two thousand and ten my client acquires his interest in the real estate from the errors of the tax debtor fast forward seven years later so seven years after the leanest filed a seven year statute of limitations to enforce those liens on the i r s finally decides if we have this tax that are going all the way back to two thousand we had been paying his taxes now in the year two thousand and seventeen for the first time  us and in the meantime i've got a client for seven years has owned this property maintained that renovated it pay property taxes insurance etc the threshold issue to be decided in this case is whether my clients get constructive knowledge of the i r s lien at the time that they acquired their interest in two thousand and ten and our position is that there could be an argument made that there was actual knowledge but there is no evidence in the  index which by definition means that the land records are kept by party name not by parcel so when somebody is ascertaining whether who has an interest in a piece of real estate search based on their names not based on property description pen or property address so in this case the fact that it was misspelled would not give anybody constructive notice of a lien against the owner of this property who acquired the title with two l's in his name and that's true if you were look if you were searching under the name is misspelled right but what do we what do you do about a more simplified search  just looking at the last name and first initial that through a couple of steps would lead you to the lead so the question is does that more simplified searches you're on out of question that does that needs to be done or is that standard practice or more importantly does that magically put this lean within the chain of title and one of the problems that we have in this case is that the evidence that was submitted by the united states says what we did a search in twenty seventeen and here's what we client acquired their interest in two thousand and ten what did the women record shall how could you do a search back in two thousand and ten was the same computer system that was available after this lawsuit was filed available in two thousand and ten we don't know what it is all we know is what was recorded in two thousand and ten and if the meaning was misspelled i'm going to cite to a court case which i pointed out in our brief on a state court case which i think is directly on point here and even though it's a state all argue that the computer system as it stood in its search capability as of two thousand and seventeen was not you know it's not the same capability that existed in two thousand and ten or eleven we did after issue was brought up so so one of the an unusual things that that kind of occurred in this case is spot on we agreed early on not to do any discovery this between the parties and the court order said that both parties were going to file cross motions for summary judgment and as the district  for the very first time they included evidence relating to what the state of the recorder of deeds public records system wasn't use to thousand and seventy we had no prior knowledge of the that evidence that was going to be used it was brought up for the first time in their cross motion for summary judgment and we had already agreed we weren't going to do any discovery at that point so as a result we were going to do this slowly through the briefs we submitted roboto evidence to show that that was not a reliable method of doing a search that the spelling of a name is important and also argued that this system that they're using was the twenty seven thousand system that the twenty t yeah i mean i know you argued that it did you did you make a counter proffer or say look in light of them pointing out what the system is in seventeen you know i need to have a deposition or i need to do something to be able to test what it was in town i  firmly state we did not your honor and the reason for that was because we had already informed the district court that we didn't want to do any discovery of the case that we were hoping to resolve this case with with basically a myth amount of expense and going reckless summary judgment if this court is not willing to just outright reverse the district court's decision and turn around and invalidate the lead in our favor i would ask that the court of these potential reconsider remained remained to get back to discovery specifically for that purpose because of the way the government handled their briefing and issue came up that we didn't we certainly didn't anticipate was going to be an issue we thought the argument was simply going moore your honour's congress is accorded federal tax liens a special status under the law to ensure the proc collection of revenue and because the government unlike most private parties is an involuntary creditor in the sense that it does not choose to become involved in any financial relationship with the delinquent taxpayer because of that government notices of federal tax liens are not required to identify a taxpayer with absolute persuasion substantial compliance with the statutory regulatory requirements is considered sufficient but attacked to put a subsequent purchaser such as the appellant's on constructive notice number of different different ways that that type of error can come about in addition to it being in error by somebody in putting the name at the i r s it could be a tax preparer who makes that kind of mistake it could required because we don't want to have situations where it's opened up to manipulation by a taxpayer who is hoping to avoid enforcement of of a tax lien in this type in engaging gamesmanship figures well maybe if i file my tax return under some variation of my name and i own property under another variation of my name it won't catch up with so that that's another key reason why absolute precision is not standard under the law federal tax thing and moreover in addition to the substantial compliance standard there is no requirement that a tax lien describe the property to which it  and that's because it attaches to the currently held in after acquired property and it would be incredibly burdensome for the i r s to have to go figure out every time they file a notice of general tax lien what property does this taxpayer own and then updated every single time that they acquire new property under a slight variation of their mean really the only way that that the parents can win in this case is if there is a absolute precision requirement if there is or strict compliance as they discuss it and whatever the law might be under state law that is simply not the law under federal tax  the evidence shows that as of twenty seventeen there was a electronic searching system but even if we were talking about a paper index here this variation on the taxpayer's name would have been right next to the correct name it would been virtually impossible to miss the only way that you could have missed it is if you were only looking for one specific variation of the taxpayer's name and that's not the law here taxpayer's first name and that he sometimes went by his initials which would have been enough to prompt want to look at last names first which is what you would generally do in a grant or grant index and then the first initial which would have also very clearly re the notice of federal tax lien here additionally the the evidence in the record does show that that is very much comes up if you search by the first initial here and the district court of discretion by excluding the expert opinions and legal conclusions of the william bond declaration and the gist of what they're arguing here is not something that they raised until the motion for reconsideration which is that it was filed in response to the information and submitted by the government the parties had agreed to expert discovery would not be necessary that the case be result in summary judgment and they never slows mr bond as an expert witness they never submitted a written report and the cause of that the district court found that it was prejudicial and that they were attempting to slip in an undisclosed expert at the end summary judgment briefing judicial notice of i included these names and here are the results she didn't opine in any way on those results she did not know this required any scientific technical or specialized knowledge is something that an untrained layperson could have easily reproduced it's akin to under trees affidavit authenticating documents and discovery do you know much reading i understand the cost purposes and efficiency purposes the parties putting it on to discover drugs that they'd never get a career on it was basically we just filed the briefs we learned what each party was presenting based upon the briefs and nobody went back and again i think that was because we had this agreement that that was the intention of how we were going to resolve the case acquired an interest in this property and seven years later for the first time this bug comes up this problem comes up any they could lose their entire interest in this property seven years later and given those circumstances i don't think it's too much to ask that the i tell the names exactly i do know that there is a regulation out there that says when they're recording liens that and they wanted to attach to a piece of real estate they don't have to put a legal description of the property or apartment and index number let's standard practice recording deeds mortgages and other types of liens even though the regulations if they don't have to there's nothing that says they can't and if they really want those leads to attach i think spelling the names right and including complete property description is the only fair way to