its should not include award of turn of series there is nothing in the record which would indicate that the court below ever made the analysis which is required under the mechanic's lien act section seventeen for an award t until all the work was completed so clearly the standard of no factual or legal basis at all for the positions taken my privacy apply so because there was your land development in an illinois corporation as the owner of the land and that's it a two and a ninety for the record so there's no doubt that plaintiff knew who the owner of the land was the since november sixth two thousand and six but none of the three complaints the name gilbert land development corporation as a parting to found they only name stephen gilbert v apparently the plaintiff tried to serve its registered agent but service was the fact that as the return of service which is in the record at eighty six shows it sometimes was given to the secretary of the register process eleven c doesn't apply because the corporation of record was it was a record and was not unknown and you can't name and it requires even if it was an unknown necessary part of just reading the statute i could find nothing on the record where the corporations ever made a party or the defendant's counsel appear for the corporation there is something in the record where  my predecessor counsel stated when asked the question are your for all the defendants answered yes but that's only for those parties who are actually defendants of the corporation was not  if there is a cap to amend the complaint and that have to comply but back to the original data file but here there was no amendment so it doesn't matter whether it was a misnomer the state rep identity or what's fact that case they know precisely who you want to was but just didn't bother to join hockey to foreclose aleem frankly without joining the record on it seems like work for this reason additional hearings in the amount and reasonableness of that same costs that continued to pen during the period of time he filed a notice of appeal i had however gilbert has a great question claimant concerning the necessity and reasonableness of the change fees and requested so judgment for interest out there was also in the original memorandum order of the court order interest based on a different statute not mechanics so again after hearing the court address that issue as well that the memorandum order goes on to say judgment for interest in the sum of ten percent from december two thousand and six is entered in addition to the reason both necessary trace fees and costs to be determined so at that point i felt like it was my job to present you know to start a process of having the hearing and that mr kirschner filed the notice of appeal and so there was a question whether we really could move forward on the attorney's fees and set those at that time or maybe it was better to set the reasonable ness of the fees later oh there would be a question yeah and i didn't have a problem with the fact that you know mr kirschner filed the appeal and he had issues and at that point a frankly sitting in the attorney's fees right now and going to this hearing very confusing to follow but as a corporation that's ground zero or grand del oro different al grand or oh very confusing fact situation but that the his memorandum order of december first independence motion to dismiss february twenty fifth oh two thousand and eight all defendants stated their appearance in the case  wyler questions him and he says i'm here for all defendants he wouldn't steve gilbert isn't a lawyer all he would say i am here for steve good birth he said i'm here for he didn't respect his parents he said i'm here for all dependents except for the us so there are cases that say if there's a defendant who's that that issue had been resolved at that point because he had entered his parents on behalf of gilbert and the corporate defendant said beppo point it was as if that matter had been address and i think that you know certainly i think and not not binding on this court but i think persuasive as well during the pendency of  to the misnomer in this state mr mr brewski rabbit that misnomer is i think actually an important distinction capital one versus and i think you they said that there's a difference between a misnomer a misnomer is a mistake but the party is per is served and has notice this subjects the party to the court's jurisdiction and the complaint in fact they go on to say can be amended anytime even after judgement to correct the misnomer the misnomer says there was so mistake in how you were named but the right party was named and you got notice and you were able to be purged of case mistake years and that would go back to this other case  mistake is you're serving somebody totally different and it doesn't have any thing may not having to do with cage dealing with you just don't have it at all in the lakeview case there were different corporations all had similar names and their risk confusion about those names they just didn't get it right they were also spanish names and so it was very confus right they didn't name the right corporation they had different corporate names that were not the corporate names that were involved capital one says if you if there's a mistake in the naming of properly served years so i think in this case the argument could be made that there is a mistake in naming the party the corporation was served  the case itself is a fairly simple case coghlan is an illinois supreme court case that their answer the case came to trial the matter was settled between the plaintiff and they defend it say over there and it was dismissed this leading claimants say you can't dismiss my  g the mechanic's lien act should be liberally construed as a remedial act and they felt that in this is an illinois supreme court case that you processes confusion may have been possible but in this case they knew as they put it right in the lien on who the owner was and we all know how to put  and that was never done in this case despite the fact they do want to join and how to do it and the fact that they may have served them that's not how you make a pardon a pardon to a case just defendant or just another d b a and i can't step into the minds of my in my of my predecessor counsel but or you may have just been being sloppy because of all the