the judge ultimately concluded that he did not believe that used an appropriate to allow city morgue is to impose a post judgment interest using the statutory rape and although most judgments are  client as to why she was required to post an interest which she had no personal liability for those amounts yet and i think that's at the heart of this case is rather not see the mortgage is entitle to impose that statutory two levels for this to occur one this was never brought up for the trial court the trial court never got a chance to own the situation in the charlock never got an opportunity to address these arguments before the trial court and here i suppose i've got nothing that says that he was never court it probably was but that's not the point all the statements found in the act we don't know that and i think that goes to my next point which is their argument should be apple cart she doesn't want the home that she just wants the money that even seymour he says exists i don't see how the trial court somehow going back and going look i made a mistake when i introduced language saying there was no s the second one my second point is the supreme court going back now for more than one hundred years looking in one hundred fifty years has said just now foreclosure is simply a conditional decree that's  dealing in this case with a conditional judgement or a good efficiency well you know it's a it's a very different situation different statute different circumstances in this case well you're not i think i would disagree with that procedure that defined how to force deficiency judgments which is inside now the army of bell it's not worth exactly the same so i'm not going to say oh they just simply change the codification they didn't do that would you agree that this isn't a should have been given this to create but still doesn't somehow me you now have a personal judgement against you in the amount of i believe it was two hundred and some are thousand dollars it doesn't somehow change that it only made it so that now if you want to complain about  circuit court for that matter interesting a three for a language absolutely makes a difference i would not take issue with that the question here is does it change the nature of the judgment that's being reviewed i don't believe that it does the judge opportunity to in fact pay those phones voluntarily before collateral seized i do want to make one more point i do smart what time is running out and that's the issue due diligence which is being raised by citi mortgage with that interest plus the two hundred eight thousand citi mortgage essentially did the full amount of but that it extinguished the debt entirely so there was no surplus and there was no fish so they didn't city somebody fifty mortgage obviously didn't understand it  bailout was one hundred eighty three thousand and the fair market value which is determined by ben price was two hundred eighteen thousand it has absolutely nothing to say about any surplus there is there is it that's simply a red herring here mr brooks uses that so then there's not and would have compared that to be hundred eighty three thousand that was the principal due that's an iris form that would've been issued regardless of whether there was a surplus or deficiency as long as the big price exceeded the principle balance basically the capital they're saying she's gaining something from this so if the bid price exceeds the principal balance she has to pay taxes on it and that was the case here that was the case if it was one hundred eighty three thousand principal versus two hundred  statutory interest that was provided for in the judgment she chose not to and that's particularly troublesome here because she essentially created a situation worse where city mortgage was allowed to bid what was the title toward at the time and she sat on the sidelines and allow that to happen then she comes in after the fact two years later and says ha ha not yet you guys overbid i didn't challenge you on that i put it but i didn't and so now you own me i'm not your pocket ten thousand dollars this is a point i think mr brooks made this point regarding the language of fifteen zero nine c fifteen zero nine c has an exception that if you challenge the judgment under two thirteen zero one g p you can claim an interest in the proceeds  two thirteen zero one g applies to people who are served by publication by explicitly exempting people who are served by publication to challenge for the proceeds of the sale you are also implicitly rejecting the idea that people who are not well the way you're looking at i think the policy i think that's a fair point the policy of it is go back to the villages for people who are served by publication while we say publication provides for service the legislature is a term of those people are given think that's a policy the policy there is to provide a limited exception if someone was served by publication they may have not actually had notice and they may have had no good reason why didn't they ok what can they go after them under th mostly says they can attack challenge for the proceeds of the sale you know so isn't it also reasonable inference that the whole policy of drop in the door that after this time you can see a challenge critical if if the legislature had wanted to do it what your honor just mentioned they could have easily done that and they didn't and because again the point is to reduce costs and increase sales bits you are not if parties know that they're going to get challenged on their sales they whether it be for the title or whether before circus like this they're going to be more reluctant to purchase property they're going to be more reluctant to be a fair market value for those properties and so that ultimately rebounds to the detriment of well it would affect it here i mean look at how citi mortgage has been dragged into a case two years later after the sale two years after confirmation that has now been briefed extensively at the trial court extensively on a seeing the i r s considers the big prize equal to the fair market value as you know foreclosure prices vary my point is is that citi mortgage would not have credit would not be two hundred nineteen thousand dollars if the judgment you would be hesitant to bid if you knew that someone was going to come in and claim that because you bid what the judgement tells you you're allowed to bid you have to pay them out of pocket ten thousand out of my understand the practice now is that when a bank goes in there that they're the  interest before the judgment of foreclosure after content free they're entitled to their title to interest at the statutory rape after confirmation of sale mr brooks is arguing that they shouldn't be entitled to any interest at all  that donut hole period the judgment of foreclosure essentially establishes and merges the documents that merges the note mortgage into a judgment it determines the amount of the judgment at two hundred eighty thousand dollars in this case and then held that even on the judgment of foreclosure that is enough i mean bill so i take issue with counsel's point about my position being you don't get any interest that's not true it's just what the what is the source of that interest rate the general practice right books they've got to show that they collected two hundred nineteen thousand dollars for purposes of reporting to whoever they report to as opposed to what they should have reported which is what they would have been able to collect they did not collect that ten thousand dollars from you can't they go after an additional judgment for the interest and that's actually the point they can go after the interest that's a crude the whole point here is this interest never accrued it was not permitted so this council corrected in this i think is attempting to create a scare tactic there oh if we do this is actually going to be somehow hurtful to the borrower because we're going to generate efficiencies no it's just going to change your bidding practices such that you not imposing interests that into a money trail i didn't hear counsel make an argument that his client was somehow allowed to enforce that judgment on my client outside that courtroom which it is a fine money judgment you have been able to and just to clarify  i don't want to concede it but no longer was refuting that they were entitle to statutory interest and then started to argue for why they should have been just laugh now modified to let the no interest rate but that became a moot point is t