dismissed on september seventeenth two and the trial court issued an order on that same day dictating that five hundred forty five paid every month for until  third march first of the next year when the new payment date would be set the problem with this case are the toughest part in this case is getting your arms around the fact that a major bank very anything  part of the on the defendant i'm i'm sorry on the appellee the big questions that come to mind as far as why why we are claiming somebody would be the new date or the for a new pavement all the other back mints in the file and those are listed in my reply brief lay out the fact that this date this payment change date can only occur once a year and that has always been march first of every year  the other documents that claim that point out that the payment change date occurs on march first or the number of adjustment rate mortgage notification we're challenging this because first of all she she never received this until she was in court in march something is just not right with this with this case when you when she consistently receive different documents claiming different it said your new payment due date is march first that contradicts clay this escrow analysis her new her new payment today was it's odd that she received a issues that were not addressed in that it is true that she claim that these payments were made but what is different in this case is that we're alleging pride and we are we are mentioning that this  justice i believe that for the first time this court is it has been brought to the attention of this court for the first time that this escrow analysis was never received by miss gaston until after the  would i would disagree because when i read the appellate briefs from the previous appeal i did not see that i saw that this was that i saw that there were a number of facts that were raised for the first time it has never been raised before that newscast and did not receive yes right now says that was not brought up before and that's the the crux of this case where you have a document that supposedly gave her a new payment due date which she had never received that's privately you know if she receives this escrow analysis it's a david act over second of two thousand and two and it's supposed to be effective october first two thousand and two you know the number of record words before us the list that that your honor i cannot dispute the record was always there and these facts were always in the record in the interest of justice i would say this i would ask that this court and finally be the last thing that i that was actually brought up in the previous of people was the fact that there were no there was not a coupon book issued and now the way it was worded it was as if  you know there was this court probably rightly so does said this this is not a big issue she did not receive a coupon book but in fact i would argue this was a big deal this goes toward the showing of pride miscast and they asked for one repeatedly the judge ordered this a bank to issue a coupon book it just seems odd that a coupon book as simple as issuing a coupon book was now for it was never sent out and then it's understandable if you're going to exercise fraud don't you want to play around with the payment amount of payment due date don't send out a coupon and everything would be set in stone and she would know exactly  her payments probably would not have been awestruck toward paper would not have been lost it's telling it's telling that she never received a coupon book if she would hear there would be no discussion as to what the amount was and when the amount sentence which basically said i made all of this because that motion didn't meet the feeding requirement of a two fourteen one motion and it didn't include the necessary elements defendants appeal should be the basis of the defendant's motion was that she was never in default and she tendered all pain then in her appellate court filings the defendant began claiming that the plaintiff engaged in some sort of support of a motion to dismiss counter claims filed back in two thousand and four so the fact that we're six years down the line here the defendant is now claiming that there is some sort of fraud with respect to that analysis hearing on the motion to make the point judgement finally the tolling of the two year statute or two year time period he could have been told because of the appeal