good morning to everyone when your case is call we'd appreciate it if the attorneys who are going to orally argue the case if you'd step up to the podium introduce yourself to the court please call the first case  are there will be very little time restraints just make sure you tell us your main points and i'd appreciate if you had your strongest points mentioned early  prosy justice is made please the court my name is party a fart i had before you today representing the intervenor appellants two thousand and ten real estate foreclosure i well see the appeal before the court today stems from the lower court's denial of intervenors motion to vacate confirmation of sale under seven thirty five i'll see section thirteen zero one each the issues on appeal before your honor so they are twofold so your honor is the first issue generally deals with plaintiffs registration or failure to register i should say under the illinois collection agency act and the second issue before your honor's today it deals with  issues involving the lease pendants filed by plaintiffs prior to its initiation of foreclosure actual or we're deciding this under fifteen dish teen ali your honor at the time we it is our contention that the underlying motion was appropriately filed under thirty no one in so far as it considerations of final judgments and we were given our status as an intervenor in this case we thought it would be it would not be appropriate because we weren't a true party to the action of a motion for reconsideration on the merits perhaps was not the best avenue we moved under thirteen zero one on the basis that  the filing of the lawsuit and all orders flowing therefrom were void under l v n v and its progeny and its predecessor cases including ford motors the procedural aspects of the case honor at this time i'm not prepared to identify a case where the court turning back to the first point your honour's dealing with plaintiff's registration under the illinois collection agency act if the court takes a very plain tex simple reading of the illinois collection agency act specifically the definition of a debt collector or a collection agency as provided for under section two of the act we see a definition which states any person who in the ordinary course of business regularly on behalf of himself or herself or others engages in debt collection we contend that this definition in compass under the cole illinois collection agency act this fact is made clear by its august second two thousand and ten registration with the illinois department of finance and professional regulation as a debt collector now we don't have within the record today the applications filed by p v with the illinois department of finance and professional regulation but what we do frequently see in these applications are statements made lend money provide checking accounts savings accounts cd accounts it's not the ordinary course of business for a bank is not per se debt collecting is defined under the collection agen now we may have a scenario where the ordinary course of the bank's business sounds more in collection activity than it does in what i believe to be traditional banking activities now if we if we take a look at section two point zero three of the collection agency act it provides eleven exemptions to businesses  whereby those businesses don't have to register under the collection agency out and when we look at the first exemption it clearly says banks and it would lead one to the very reasonable conclusion that banks should be wholesale excluded from the collection agency act but if we look just a little bit further in section one it was apparent that a call which says except those who own or operate collection agencies it's our contention that with that parent that a call the illinois general assembly at least contemplated a situation where a bank could own or operate a collection agency  the you own your operated by the bank or the record is not entirely clear on this fact based on what i have seen in the record and my counsel for appellee might be able to shed some light on this the within the the context of a thirteen zero one motion my client was the movement it would have been my client's burden to demonstrate that it splits this helps and it doesn't appear to jive with your with your contention that this is a collection agency there was no can you just point to anything that says that there was any type of  respectfully provide a point of caution for the court that in the caption where you see a defendant identified as his sipek realty group l l c under a memorandum an affidavit of equitable interest recorded as document number  when in our brief when we filed appendix the summary of the record on appeal there are a large blocks of documents which we say are improperly filed by mr west house here with the court and with the cook county in our brief that we took the position that the standard of review was a dyno vote standard of review and why's that in so far as that this is a question of law that we were asking the court to provide what evidence was presented to the trial court that in fact this was a the record what was the evidence that was presented which we can cite to say the circuit court went wrong your honor that the record is very short if there is minimal evidence i will just put it i could not put my finger on a piece of specific evidence to answer your honor's question but i will say that one of the root forms of relief that we seek is to have this matter that's what we're reviewing that whether or not the trial court's order was rock or i tend to think we it's an abuse of discretion standard but unless you can point out for us evidence that the court did not consider properly or did that way to support your case i don't see how we can send argument here is that when when i plaintiffs is required to register under the collection agency act it's its filing of the will it does not have the capacity to bring the lawsuit and to the extent that it does bring the lawsuit it's knowledge it's void and your honor i apologize if i'm not able to answer your question as directly as you like i want you to have sufficient rebuttal time connection with the balance argument the first is the boot of what is the standard of review here it is clearly under two thirteen zero one and abuse of discretion so the question is did the trial court abuses discretion in denying the motion to vacate the order  cannot use thirteen zero one to set aside that sale because of the court as this court held that would affect it affectively do it end run around the illinois mortgage foreclosure act and when this when the that the intervenor here was involved in this case was aware of these issues well the for the time it brought its motion and moreover as an intervenor it takes subject to all of the orders that had been previously entered in th case so it is no excuse or defense to claim that it is a new party to the action and therefore didn't have the benefit of litigating the case earlier it's presumed that it was in the once it was granted leave to intervene it is presumed it was in the case from the beginning and as your your honor of mention a few moments ago the the exception to the illinois credit collection agency act includes an exception for lending or finance companies so by by by holding that license the court needs to take should take notice of the fact that because the general assembly in our legislature had already determined that a licensee is only a licensee is intitled to get engaged in mortgage loan servicing under the residential mortgage licensee act that it has effectively taking this area of the law this is of the mortgage origination business and occluded it in its own licensing parameters so the fact that i think i don't see how anybody could have misread that i think it's very clear that it's this subject mortgages the one that is being foreclosed and if there is any a errors with the county recorder's office and how they convey the information from the list tenants on to the website that has certainly nothing to do with the fact that this this fund is was in proper form unless you your honor so i would like to touch on just one or two issues raised by mr noonan i'd like to start with the residential mortgage licensing act there's nothing in the i'll refer to it as the are in no way which indicates that it is the  t governing statutory scheme for what we call a loan servicers in fact there's nothing in either the r m l a or the collection agency act to hint that they are mutually exclusive and in fact what's in the record is that the plaintiff is appears to be licensed under the on the way but they also took that extra step of registering under the collection agency act in august of two thousand and ten and as i mentioned earlier that that act by doing that plaintiff is self identified it's essentially saying to the world we are  collection agency and bat is why we are going to register with the illinois department finance and professional regulations also just a still in our in l a we have several instances in business where a business would have to register with multiple agencies we have the plaintiff in this case registering under the are in l a we also have them registering with the illinois secretary of state as a foreign entity there might be other registrations that plaintive undertakes so i would respectfully submit that the argument that registration with the inquiry ends because there was a registration and under the our m l a may be the honorable judge jesse rest there were requests made that you know the matter be continued for a short period of time so that perhaps limits discovery could be taken on this specific issue  clients by virtue of its own mistake or whatever the case might be was under a tremendous amount of financial pressure and pressure is far as timing was concerned so at the time we filed this section thirteen  we really didn't have the benefits of you know taking sixty days or ninety days to conduct any type of meaningful discovery into what the view is with respect to the only collection a underlying motion was filed on october twenty fourth two thousand and eleven it was presented before the trial judge on november twenty second two thousand and  and it was ultimately denied on january twenty seventh two thousand and twelve honor i have a i think i know who it is i don't know if it's appropriate for me to speculate on this issue if the court would like i can offer to the court who i believe the manager is the name of that individual if if the court would like i will do that i believe is recent non binding authority and frankly i don't know if it helps or hurts my client's position but there was the l b n b case was remanded back to judge malts he was the presiding trial court judge on april twenty third or twenty fourth of this year judge molds rendered a expansive memorandum opinion in order where in his opinion he deemed certain portions of the collection agency act unconstitutional i  believe the honorable judge most also certified some aspect of his ruling for potentially immediate review by the illinois supreme court i merely wanted to bring this new development to the court's attention so you may do with it as you wish