so important is this we did the work ok it was insurance or we didn't get paid for it we don't have mechanic's lien she walks down the bankruptcy court tomorrow goes say the insurance which was november october fourth two thousand and twelve and the actual date november fourteenth that's faith so that's that's to me that's there's a north shore and those two the fall in cases when wrong day when the work leaves the peter hartman case was wrong contrary stated that mccain actually the north shore completed the work same day two years later ninety eight not so anybody that would look at that one would say well my goodness you've got a file within four months to affect me that's two years ago so that did affect in my opinion was a third party in the north shore case bank was involved which is the third party and i think it although certainly the farther away from that you market participating parties it seems to me the more the porch scrutinize does this really materially affect the rights and maybe take a more narrow view on the when you get to the bottom line your honor the answer is the my opinion judge felt like he was obliged to follow ron under the facts of this case and in my opinion his deference to this case was inaccurate an because running did not tell that result there is nothing about running decision if you look at the end the court says you got the wrong party you didn't say the part of contract that you didn't describe the right contract sure the date was wrong from the point i'm just trying to get a handle on why why that was done why that was done was that they mr bates which was the first attorney this case took the position that the homeowner's repair didn't say them and the sling could go forward he said you violated the homeowners repair act and in fact the statute did change the supreme court have said the only thing you get out of the defect in the homeowner repair act and it requirements you may have an affirmative right to sue under the consumer fraud deceptive practices so it was really addressed to the homeowners repairing but it spilled over into the mechanic's lien and that's where we find foul from your standpoint with us arguably yes judge but at the end of the day what the court focused in on is you got this contract that you say was in x date and it wasn't and so you inaccurately described it so i view the two sort of intertwined i don't really get around oh well on appeal are you arguing that the trial court striking of the agreement prejudiced your ability to bring the count authority i decided i was wrong and that's what happened i believe here i think should follow made an error and said no boy anything he asked me to look at it again i can't even look it out added on my own more thirty days trying to prove an oral contract but only if you can show me it was made on the day that this writing since and if you don't you lose we could there wasn't an oral contract there was a writ and it had a day and the date was the day and it was misstated in the mechanic's lien the two don't really die but in the case there was an amended his yes but it didn't change the big change the amount i think it went up or fourth wasn't i think actually what happened was nov fourteenth start and their date at the end was pollution date with contrary to the day she signed up was not the dave star i know i read someplace arnold considered to be a third party and title two additional protections section seven of the act gives a mechanic's lien claimant two chances to go after a third party claimant the first is by lien claim that miss identifies the month of the contract the date of the contract and also states a contract now when there wasn't one now as we started talk about running this court's decisions  striking of the written agreement to the count of poor close them pants off and that's that's a question i puzzled over to be honest with you because of the pastor of this case it's been a little bit confusing going back to it i think that the answer is first of all it's a matter as a matter of procedure alleged in the count without attaching anything and then perhaps you might have disparity between what's alleged in the complaint and what's attached but let's just say you if not most of which have dates on them none of which are dated the date put forward and the claim that they filed i mean but it's created as a great deal in fusion and the one of the purposes behind the filing requirement that clear up some of the fusion is to get a third party look at the claim and decide whether they have to worry about it and that just just wasn't done here and i think it is interesting in the court that pointed this out in a question to mr richardson that two bites at the apple here they  four months of the of the date of filing of the lien or the suit you got to know what the contractors knew can't you can't count backwards for months to a contract that doesn't exist mean there are places that talk about what is isn't required to be included in the claim for lane and all that really has to happen is that the third parties have notice of the existence nature and character claim if there is more though it has to be white so it doesn't in some sense matter but they were there was a requirement that for example be put in the data the contract but that they put in the completion date or that they put in the amount of the contract because the fact the matter is on the ground they put those in and all of those were wrong so how are we as a third party supposed to be able to determine whether this contract has been completed whether it's ever performed whether it exists i think that's really a lot of the point behind contractor had contractors name preprinted in the form but was signed by somebody bailed some i forget pristine bail or something like that some individual with the same last name as the seven i mean just didn't identify the proper parties even though it was on the plane probably now well known or near that here we have a case here where we have significant variation between what is alleged to be the contract and what was included in the plane because just this is this is no way we can determine you know whether whether that that there is a claim there and i think that the basis that mr richard determining whether or not that date was met for purposes that after the case is that determined that it was met all started from the premise that the claim itself facially valid in describing the contract now there is one exception and that's the north shore pace i'm sorry that the hartman case but in that case now i was standing there about twenty defendants doesn't get any of them or third parties so then i party look at it and decide whether or not it's in forcible against them because they can determine if there's a valid they identify contract whether the four month runs and whether they're in or out here don't have that we just do not have that we apple on the claim itself and revives the apple in terms of pleading and there just hasn't been a contract identified that is the contract that is identified in both claims really there's no way we can look at that and figure out whether or not we're within the four  predated all of us right i would i would i would think that they would know about i would say there is no requirement and this is an area that i'm not really familiar with fire you if you see the site how could they not know that this mechanic's lien that's been filed by sutton was for the work that was being done i to restore this burned down precisely the kind of after that the only paragraph is intended to protect people against and they presented to her a contract which violates the act by not including the completion violate the act by not including the brochure and then they plunged ahead with the work and went through twenty five pages of dishes and change orders and things like that resulting in work which the owner indicated in other pleadings and court actions below they weren't satisfied so i recognize that to a certain extent we're talking equity here but i hesitate to suggest that we're a bad we're going to be talking back to the other point that i would make i mean response to your question sure we probably knew that there was some contract but which one i mean we have to be able to evaluate whether it's a valid contract and whether there's money out and if they tell him this is one contract and play twice and then they're telling us in a suit that's another contract retires how can we possibly evaluate that i mean yeah we heard that assuming we heard the house for about five we would like to have our collateral rebuilt so it has value makes perfect sense but we have to be able to know what's going on and then we have a contractor that shows up at the d to the court which is if you're a third party you're not a homeowner you are entitled to absolutely no mistakes compliance with the mechanic's lien materials information contained in there i disagree  take this from a guy who's argument to the extreme if we miss a day by one day it's wrong and it's wrong and it's not right so they're off the hook what about two days or three days and that's what the heart in case was about said this pursuing the path from which an adversary can overwhelm overwhelm him for an immaterial misstep its function is to preserve the substantial rights of those against whom the remedy offered directed and is never to be employed otherwise so this isn't a one day offer and you lose it's are your substantial rights effect and i listen to tom did argue i didn't hear him