please approach supported him and tell us who you are and who you represent please call t the legislature one should first look to the plain language of the statute that is what peterson house is done in this case however the interpretation and edition requirements we have no one his side of the case as to how the attorneys lean neck should work in a situation where the property has transferred i carry with you there you go and so this being so first did your farmer present these made to your client that we were negotiating with our clients to get paid yes but you know there was there was no other agreement other than this written representation in your brief yes to getting paid although of course we have an engagement letter were retained by them we did we sent them invoices but visa be after the closing we were talking to them yes but during the closing and i think you i don't know that it's an interesting point just the sentiment when i asserted on january seventeenth the attorneys lien i carved in the title company because i was always taught or people again let know at that point why not and when the seller's counsel mr rec hosts wrote me it's in the record and i think it's january twenty third he said we don't care what you're asserting in the title company you we don't they don't care about it so i was given the back of the hand by the seller's counsel him by the title company after having properly asserted the attorney's lien on the property but why but why would you miss this  among other things we were threatened by one of the buyers council saying if we stop or in any way impede the sale will be sued but we were in this we weren't adverse to our clients in the sense that we were getting ready to sue them we didn't sue them for several months later and the philosophy was let's try and work it out they're going to get some property there they're going to flip it there they have other obligation they have other debts but they're going to try and work out a payment plan that was the firm's philosophy and probably still is today the last thing you want to do is sue your client your former client so it's just he's done trust absolutely just saying yes like you follow that well we were told the title company didn't care and found it words and if you go back to my opening if you look at the plain language it doesn't say what you do except it describes a procedure for going to court having the court determined what did attaches to the amount and the date the priority date but they're  not and i submit we would be having a good boss to say that it doesn't in the philip morris case among other cases are supreme court has said that this act creates new rights which have here too for fowl it's a different kind of animal and going back years since it was created it has been treated differently even in the i think it's a clear case the court talks about mechanics liens are secret until somebody starts to to foreclose upon it that there are turning lien cases were other people other claimants are searching other liens and the court looks to see always this attorney lien perfecta probably let's look to see which one was perfected first and that one gets the priority i submit justice conner's when we go to the plain language of the act and the act says such lean shall attach to any property which may be recovered on account of such suits claims the man's or causes of action from him and after time of service of the notice so when the illinois legislature drafted the attorney's lien act i submit what i learned is we've got to look at the exact language of the act because it must have some meaning it show attach to the property from an after the time of service of the notice if you're suggesting  court that the supreme court saying impress they are on and the statute saying attaches to the property has meaning but attorneys i mean we're like the shoemaker who has holes in his shoes we don't have a whole lotta remedies for things we can do when we are being paid by our client week certainly can never retaining lee if we have files and records we have that by common law and then we have a statutory charging way as far as i know we don't have any other wings make it super fees but proceeds from that jurisdiction repros he's done it he did not have the proceeds correct we sued the how did he have jurisdiction over anything that because we sued the sellers who were the principal out of the course of the attorney these were the ones that we gave the notice to and we can we serve them and i think we sued main street which was the the party that the property was flipped to at the january twenty fifth closing and judge taylor determined only certain  was in front of him so that his order with him any effect on any of us why did he have jurisdiction to do what he did when we went before judge taylor when we sued we sued the parties that had acquired the property of the parties that we'd given notice of the attorney's lien we didn't know whether they still possessed the property or not but how does he have jurisdiction mechanically proceedings involving the property well it can you just said a minute ago that we are in no state that buyers and people who suha know about notice they are on their required themselves to seek out notice of what's happened to a piece of real other lean claimants or banks what information would they have to challenge the peterson and how clean that we went before judge taylor i submit what judge taylor did discretion he said i'll determine the amount that applies to the right i would only differ adjusts when when you say no proton now you're i think the state should is it the attachment date is when service occurred and i think that's what the case was says the interpretation of the attorney's lien statute is yes he made it a day prior they were involved but again they had notice of what was going on actual notice and i know he didn't i think my opening brief that it was interesting that now people the other parties are complaining about  checked and so that's how it works which is enough with the statute reads as your to put it notice to the defendant not your client for the defendant the person you are suing in the underlying lawsuit notices sent to them that you would the attorney have an the defendant's cell or he transferred it did we file it before there were other transfer do we file it after other transfers no we filed it before while the property was still in the hands of the original seller w writes me on january twenty third and says we're going everything the closing is going to go forward somebody from style cowan says you're lying better your letter better not screw up the closing that there's a little confusion in the record i think that these were backdated been a little bit better than those of us of commercial litigation seeking real estate but they asserted early on before they won anything they assert it and say just decide when your insurance company if i win it better know that i've got an interest on that and we're talking there about the if it's a settlement or there's a recovery of money and i submit while the attorney slain clearly applies to money to property to a number of things it's a little bit different animal and then the mechanism it works a little different when it's property because while it will attach to the proceeds attached to the insurance check here it teche to the property and i submit just when that's got to have some meaning again if we go back to it i'm limited what i go back to but if we go back to kefir word impressed upon the property attached to the property must have some meaning it doesn't say footnote but if there's some subsequent transfers or sales leave litigation orders were entered regarding someone's property he discretion that now when we trace the transfers of the property but that's i think just to squeeze point by the time just judge taylor question and i submit that attached to the property impressed upon the property has to have meaning and until we are satisfied it's there that i submit that otherwise it would allow the client to commit a fraud or do just ignore the act and make transfers hidden inviolate without knowledge to the attorneys and in violation of the attorney's only now i understand the panel's questions it's an interesting case because we are presented when we are going orland park property the nine and a half acres just simon i submit there was property it may have been in somebody else's hands there may have been other wing claimants but it's but it to me it's no different then if ten years later some chase j p morgan chase makes a loan and didn't do its due diligence and maybe there were other liens on it it in the we side of the seven circus we supplemented the record in the seventh circuit cites a turn of the century the last century illinois supreme court case that talks about that conveyance extras and that there's no requirement only in certain situations that you follow a conveyance say and in that case is i recall if there was a divorce between a husband wife divorce the properties being split fifty fifty and then the wife says she's going to buy the property well she stops making payments one of her children from a prior marriage uses that collateral and there's a foreclosure proceeding the husband finds out he has no notice of this and says i want to intervene in the federal court proceeding trial court says no the seventh circuit says no based on illinois law there's no requirement that you give actual notice there's constructive notice because the lender should have traced back to find out how the wife and the wife's children the ex wife children had an interest so i submit that at least one we're looking at the early twentieth century cases inherently good case law in illinois then at the party whose has an obligation to i think it's reasonable diligence and that's constructive notice so there are situations where people are loaning money in cumbering in this case real estate and they may not know may not have had actual notice of what occurred somehow didn't record it but everybody could find out maybe they did a lisbon whatever they did and years later then they've never for close they've never gone after ten years later if they find out the properties being sold they st claim they're not barred just because the property has changed hands if they can prove they did with this because it's their of banking and we then have to deal with other ex they have to have a record but the fact that passage of time or that the property has changed hands i submit doesn't in of itself defeat the attorney's lien again i go back to you know justice when found my quote from philip morris in other cases it's a strange animal it's different it's years that's true as long as they comply to convince their because then they have to give notice to people who are under convenience and they lose their and their place at the end of the line why doesn't apply to your client and then if you where i'm sorry why doesn't apply to you supreme court case it has long been the law in illinois that subsequent purchases of property are chargeable with constructive notice of unrecorded interest in the chain of title which with the diligence and investigative skills of an and so as i said to go over the bringing up a closing right you've sent out a lien notice so one week before closing and then you mentioned in your paragraph three thirty seven your complaint we chose not to bring it up or closing right the statute to other statutes which specifically provides for foreclosure as a remedy this statute does not in fact when you look at the language of the statute in terms of enforcement it's towards the end as requiring notice to the adverse party and adverse party in this context refers to the party that was adverse to the attorney's clients so that there isn't even any mention in their of notice to two other third parties that this statue clearly does not contemplate enforcement of an attorney's lien on property once that property is in the hands of third parties about new and substantial rights he goes on to state that it attaches to any verdict judgment or decree of the proceeds of the settlement it's a lean upon proceeds only of the settlement  what's happened here it's here and then it says it but it's open ended it says that once the court which was done here the court has the power to force that  it can't override the provisions of the conveyance act that specifically deal with real property and let's compare what they did in catherine wood which is the only case that's been cited to deal with real property  k case was not a foreclosure case yes in that case the court did say we're going to impress and lean upon the property in in the event that the client does not pay the fees we're going  have property be sold in order to provide for that payment that was an equitable remedy that was proper in that context because there weren't any other third parties involved no one else would have been else's rights would have been trampled but that's not the case that we have here at kathy were simply is not precedent for imposing the lien subsequent to the client's ownership certainly not to allow foreclosure of that money home foreclosure is a separate process that's provided for by the statutes of illinois so in reading your breathing pages that said you questioned how this could be kno briefs in the case before judge taylor we were not made a party and we cannot be found to be bound by those orders there was no privity of our client with respect to judge taylor's orders indeed as we point out and i would also submit that that's not relevant fact at this point that the property had already been transferred out of title by clients who peterson and how at the time th counsel and should the court get that far we wanted to make sure that this was you know spelled out that like michael counsel said there there is nothing in the record to show that there was any actual knowledge but there's also nothing to show there's any  constructive knowledge which would be required to put the these are police on notice any comments on the land it can only be in the chain of title when it's recorded in the grant or grant index and only then can a party be chargeable with knowledge there of cannot be held to be constructive notice to the subsequent purchasers which are two fold down the line when you're talking about our abilities the was pendent act specific to requires that all parties  for this reason specifically the only counties code takes those names that are on that was pendants and uses those for the books and records which form the basis of constructive knowledge so when the subsequent purchasers in this owner is not considered within the chain of title and so if it's not within the chain of title obviously cannot act is constructive notice i think the larger point that not only this issue but some of the other issues have been discussed this morning is these complications and all these differ fact patterns and scenarios that come up in our briefs and this morning an argument when trying to determine if an attorney leaning does or doesn't attach to land doesn't doesn't run with the land i think just goes to show that the act was not for it to be applied in this way or rather to be upright applied to the proceeds from the settlement or judgment if in this case the proceeds were in fact the right to buy property then it seems logical that you know so you have the attorney as you suggested the attorneys a sort of a co partner with the client they could either they could do one of two things they could either both take title to this property when it's sold which was the order of the underlying court a specific property must be sold to some it there or peterson could have when when the property turned around it was sold some it could have then i'm sorry main street could have sought the profits from that sale through satisfied  there are no provisions for notice in the attorney lien act to third parties in comparison with the mechanic's lien act which we've discussed this morning quite a bit there it goes to great pains to make a difference between attachment and enforcement and there's a list of things that must be done to attach and that's great for the record owner but if it's going to go beyond that to third parties and future leaders are banks there are a second set of things that must be done so that proper notice is giv counsel mentioned there are no there's no case law nor does the act state that you trailing would run the land like a mortgage or mechanic's lien in fact given in the baker versus baker case that states that the attorney only has an interest in proceeds that is quite extensive with the client once the client divest itself of any interest in property it stands to reason that the attorney is also divested of any interest in that property and the only thing it could do is to go after the profits which is the interest that its client now has holding on to the profits from that sale as they've admitted in their papers they could have prevented or forced their lien against the that letter wasn't even proper under the attorney i mean act but i think the problem from where we start from there is that what was the purpose of this letter because if this isn't a normal case where you're sending to the judgment better of your client saying i have internally before you pay out x amount you know i get my share here's a case where the order was they have to sell property to the client so intil the property was sold and the property was paid for there was no proceeds in this case for the wing to attach to it so it was unclear what the purpose of that letter would have been the the seller hickory and the in the trust didn't have is you can do the transaction see the money for us well but the money would have to been saved by the client not the seller because the peterson had no right to the proceeds of the original sale from hickory to  unusual case when we're talking about the proceeds being extra piece of property there was really nothing else to do but wait until that property was resold and then take action against the profits that was not done in this case peterson has said the reason they didn't do it is they relied on a promise from its client that they would be paid i would submit that instead of taking advantage of certain avenues they had at the upfront to get their attorneys fees paid they relied on this promise it didn't work out and it's unfair to no try to force enforce the consequences of that decision on third party purchasers who had no initial involvement in the case that led to the attorneys sellers because we have to use these decided in five days and they chose not to do them as well as their right cripps and that's that's the point is that there were avenues that they could have taken they instead chose to trust their client when the client said i'll pay you a honor i submit just screen that it's not limiting language it doesn't say only those two courts just says this includes judge kersey o memorandum order said i don't see a procedure for closure and i don't see how this can apply when there's been transfers of property she did not adjudicated make any rulings on whether there was notice whether there was constructive notice whether judge taylor did anything properly or improperly she assumed for the sake of her ruling what has been appeal that everything was done wonderfully and maybe everybody has noticed she says i can't see a way to foreclose i can't so she's doing a status trying to petition and technically that is the order that was appealed to me see if we have to look into our own and if your institution and how do we have had been met because there must be meaning to hatch's from an after the time of the service estates three notice we haven't seen a case that said we're going to put a time limitation on this or we're going to say it's only fine another slimier nation how before the mechanics in court and said we have some challenge that we want to present evidence that there wasn't proper notice that was it your correct before the judge taylor the act itself begins by saying attorneys at law shall have a lean upon or claims doesn't say you got to do something special it says we've the legislature of the state of illinois have created this x so that attorneys shall have a lien for the amount of anything and you have the whole paragraph the dealing with a series of recall the health care services act and other act then you get to the second paragraph to enforce such things so the first part of the statute and i submit just were here it's a step strike instruction case it is the party can sue their clients may have such suits so first of all we were required to serve the notice on the adverse party not our client the act itself says you serve the adverse party in this case the seller and so so the seller in this case so with cell bank the trust that holds a history you can call after them you chose not to but the act doesn't say that your remedy is limited to suing the bad adverse party the seller infect say how do you have to serve and that's not who you're restricted to suing it doesn't say there is who you're restricted to suing act it says attaches to the property and i submit conveyance act does not apply to every lien interest there is nothing in the can of a insect by its terms that says attorneys liens are covered so all these cases that they  case there is no reported decision that i found or anyone is cited in the state of illinois where an attorney had only known real property and some appellate or the illinois supreme court said the only conveyance act applies no such decision has been that has been discovered and i submit because it doesn't apply because as the anthony case said there's not a requirement in every situation when you have an interesting property that you follow the illinois c yance act we didn't we weren't required to it teched to the property our claim an interest is superior to the others and had they done some ordinary due diligence which would be something for the trucker to fight they would have discovered it thank you