well i just think it's fundamentally unfair to to take these as it missions when you're basically dealing with any answer by your client yes he wanted to notify the court of a change of address i believe so i wasn't involved in the case at that time but i do remember something to that effect folk i think were they no longer living at the you don't know if i am asked to notify the court of a change of address you know like you are now what is your idea regarding this notice re well the statute seems to you to indicate that it's mandatory that it's that the notice be sent it says that no way action shall be commenced unless these can be right at the met right ok stop does it then say what happens if you don't do that no doesn't when it doesn't say what happens when you don't do it don't the cases tell us that then we have to do a mandatory slash directory analysis to determine whether or not legislature intended something when they incorporated this requirement i believe that's right so likely the legislature intended this to be mandatory that it shall take place so in this case do we have any evidence that the bank didn't send the oldest or do we simply have that it was sent by the bank ok and this is i would presume that the affidavits for my clients would raise the issue there was no response to this by the bank so when they raised the issue they moved to dismiss correct yes and the trial judge then concluded that the complaint stated that all notices required to be given were given and that then there is a mission or their failure to deny was an admission yes but then he he relied on probably one of his own decisions or the another case saying that  that it was that it's alleged that the notice was given your clients answer the complaint and they don't deny that so what are you supposed to do it when you know is that something that something's not the night it seemed mid is there a special rule that says that i as i stated earlier right and you just mentioned i think the problem is you have a pro se litigant here i don't know i just think it's just unfair  attached to the complaint in effect i predict the allegations contained in section three day actually ended and the end of the complaint and therefore the exhibits w the problem here is that they allege an assignment of the mortgage from ages through mergers through the ac but know and the know it has to be there or paper endorsed him playing or the payee in the know it has to be the same entity that holds the no neither is true here they go suggestion that you you're presenting a new theory that wasn't presented to the trial court it is that motion to reconsider well first of all i don't think it was a motion to reconsider trying to fit me in the legal principle that the common law principle motions for it matter or new matters raised on a motion for reconsideration cannot be raised on appeal but the mortgage foreclosure section rules to the roman numeral to be to indicate that in order to obtain it the fault judgment the plaintiff has to establish its standing in relation to the promissory note in question just i just don't see how they establish just any circumstances i think the you know all the argument that the the the sale itself and also the order and confirming that report of sale and the order possession thank you thank you cost reconsideration their standing arguments we've done appeal they can show no errors or course various judgments they produce no evidence in summary judgment that created a genuine issue of material fact or in dispute or even contradicted banas proof th the and they thought they'd moved to dismiss in the crowd and in their potion they said that we never received the notice now from there we can at least in our it's a reasonable inference that if they didn't receive it then it wasn't sacked so it wasn't sacked do we have a problem i don't think so the statute only requires it sent by us mail and there's no allegation or proof that it wasn't sent by us mail ok whoa whoa i got your missed was fifteen i understand i mean the fact is not whether they received it the facts whether insight is there anything in the record that shows that they statute where it allows those allegations to be deemed allegations and not clearly by they must have made a determination that the i'm the actual act of filing the complaint substantially complying is enough to show that that person sent the notices that are noticed the the fact that the notice was sent has been admitted by their failure to contest it they never said anything in the original answer they evolve it that when the bank said that other notices required to be given were given work given right what were these other notices that whatever other noses are required in order to file a formal without notice is one of them is this notice yes and you think it's simply enough to say that you are not supposed to bring a foreclosure complaint right and i know this and so would you agree that if you didn't send that notice then the court should not granted summary judgment should eventually all should never come for sale under those circumstances i think if there no but that's it we just want to get it out there but it really doesn't matter and it's really not required that they receive it but what's the point of this whole thing that right i think there's i think the easiest way to make sure that the sash is complied with is to make sure it was sent by the bank right because there are many things that could get in the it get in the way of something actually being received that none of which would be under the control of the person actually sending the notice so requiring the bank to come up with some sort of proof of receipt would be way more difficult and dirty and that is not the right but it does require that before you file a complaint that you send out they have no right and so i would think that it wouldn't be a difficult matter at all if we remember that this matter who or the trial court to determine whether in fact you were actually sent that note and if you did it well first of all you should have all the documents in order it would clearly indicate that you mail that notice to these people at that address and it doesn't even matter if they vote so be it but if you set it to the address of the power you're here you're off the hook but if you don't send it then there's a serious question about whether or not the court should have allowed the entry of the judgment because the statute was created to give the farmers one more chance before that flight was filed to seek counseling and if they sought the appropriate counseling under the act they can then get another thirty days now that's what the point of the statute so if it was done it should be a simple be entered to resolve the problem but the fact there is a question of fact based on their motion to dismiss whether or not it was actually sent out i don't think it's enough to say you've already admitted it was you can argue that and out but i think the proof is in the budget and if there was a  in the group of all the horses or so i don't think so because the statute says you can't file a complaint at all until and thirty days after that notice is set so what the dean allegations kind of do in the form complaint is say that answer that question one way or another in our i just i i think that by using the form complaint that the bank did and filing it in accordance to the statute that it's supposed to in the form of the legislature has deems necessary and by saying that all notices were filed waiting thirty days is a prerequisite to filing a complaint in general means that the bank has done what it's supposed to do including that prerequisite notice of the grace period well and so i think that  that under these facts that everything that was done should simply be on my side yes it really is that if there's any question about whether the notice sat whether they look at this pro se answer as to her breath he had he he indicates that he's challenging standing on the basis that there is no endorsement in blank and there is no assignment of the note to be a c so i think that that has to be construed in effect as an affirmative defense also