yeah the first case on calendar rights vs greentree service i about i think there still would be a violation i have seen cases in which for example notice is sent with respect to a loan which had previously been on the property because of a prior owner or had been paid off and somebody thinks that it's an open love that they were talking about when b because going to rises out of the fact is that is a first loan and the second one question is what this  modifications now and i think that under the struble case and spokeo informational injury is sufficient and i think that we are struble says that disclosure of information that affects your rights rob legations in the particular transaction is sufficient and given the fact that this controls your right to modification there have been problems with greentree not making  proper accommodations with respect to modification or misrepresenting what your rights are so yes it's important nothing nothing new here you are in this particular case well actually the  plaintiffs were behind they were in need of a modification and this did impact them the problem in that respect is that it's not in the second amended complaint which was filed before spokeo dismissed without without the spoke your argument being raised right after the decision came out struble was decided on appeal it was first raised in a in rule twenty eight filings so that if it is important if the court considers it him ort is they find out but it takes some time to do this wouldn't they have deduced it pretty easily because they got a notice saying that the new service company is green tree no you're right after that the notice saying that green tree servicing is being transferred to greentree effective june sixteenth and stating that nothing else about your mortgage loan will change on june eleventh of two thousand and fourteen greentree sends its notice out using only its low number nat preview which has not been previously disclosed or made known to the plaintiffs in any manner and stating that the creditor that is the owner changed on may sixteenth so in other words before the date of the transfer of servicing notice which says that nothing is being changed there notified that something else has changed to the two notices are inconsistent there's a phone number the where you call and thing is i mean you you have complicated notices these are complicated transactions that which are very consequential and i certainly see that on the other hand your client claims to be bewildered and there's a phone number to call if you have a question truth in lending requires a written disclosure and one that isn't a form you can keep so you have a record it is very first it's problematic to get through second they can tell you whatever they would like again greentree is subject to a consent order regulating misrepresentations connected and that was not done is your claim soley based on the interpretation as opposed to the language of the statute or the regulation no your honor the regulation clearly states that the disclosures required by this section show ident i'd accept for purposes of argument doesn't matter but what's the answer the question is if that is it the statute that is has itself along what has been violated or is it the statute says that you show identify it usual give notice of such transfer and at least implicit in that is a statement of what it is that is being transferred and in my time is  good morning and may it please the court marty brace for a appellee defendant greentree the last time i had the honor to argue in this court i actually argued the struble verses committee bank case on behalf of the bank and i would submit that the decision of this court in struble is controlling and two respects first struble dealt with a different section of the official staff commentary but that section like this section provided examples and it used the word examples it used the permissive word net and it also indicated that the bank had an option all the same language used in the section of the official staff commentary and issue here plus the official staff commentary at issue here goes even further by using the word flexible this court  well they know which which long that was referred to your honor because they were previously provided with a notice of service and transfer that specifically identify greentree as the new service or the jew notice that issue in to assume that the average consumer can't read can't understand and is not non intelligence the basis for assuming the greentree knew that the initial notice from household did not out in other words if you're saying that the reason lists of green trees communication is framed by the prior communication from the predecessor service or what says that green tree knew that that communication which did more specifically refer to the loan in question was even being sent out what because greentree was the new service or your honor and this didn't happen in isolation and in fact the statute requires both the old servicer and the new service or to provide notices it's not uncommon and it's expressly permitted under tyl in lock step as both the statute and the regulations and require know how on the pleadings can we find in effect that greentree knew that household a knish will notice had been sent out to to the point followed by green trees change in ownership notice that expressly also notes it's the new service or followed by and this isn't in the appendix but it's in the district court docket at docket number six dash two and that is green trees third third the notice the rights would have received the second from green tree again indicating that green tree is now your new service or so between all of those things happening and in in compliance with the statute because again the way this case started disses their third complaint in the first complaint they said no no service and transfer notices were were provided and that turned out to be wrong and they completely switched their their theory but the fact that these notices were all provided there's no question about that the fact that they were all timely provided under the statute and the regulations shows this happening precisely the way it was supposed to  common sense i can't understand how they wouldn't they had to loans not one hundred the first loan something either happened to or not the first one either stayed with h f or c so they received no notice of anything of his service in transfer or an ownership transfer or the first loan was transferred to a different new service or who or its ownership was transferred to a different new purchaser and they would have received notices from those new services those new purchases and there's no allegation of that in the complaint either way but if i any of those things happened that's all that could have happened i mean the loan didn't the first loan didn't go away it either stayed with h f r c it was transferred to someone else they would have received notices of that there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't of and there's certainly no allegation in the complaint that they did lack of notice with respect to the second more he's made clear that was the first  the reverse your honor this is the second mortgage i'm referring to the first mortgage but yes but again the first could have been transferred a patheticly we don't know but but if it it  either stayed with h f r c or it was transferred and if it was transferred there's no reason to believe that h f r c didn't provide the requisite notice where the new service or new purchase the earth they're consistent with tyler didn't provide the requisite no you you would agree that if both mortgages were in flux within a month or two and nobody gave them the single number that links together one of the  transactions with with the new transaction be pretty confusing i frankly your honor i wouldn't in may they receive a notice saying your servicing is being transferred to green tree that identifies green tree in june they receive a notice saying green tree is now your new owner and we're your service are consistent with the main notice i just don't understand what's so difficult about that and if they had any question there's a phone number they could have called i  the old account number instead of making the customer pick up the phone well you are i guess we wouldn't be here if the old account number was what was issued but that was the players i presume would not brought the case but that could still be confusing as as well because the old account number is meaningless to greentree if you called us up and you gave the old account number we wouldn't be able to do anything with that the loan now operates off the new and if you were only sleep put the old account number on it on on a check that your payment for instance it would come in to us and it would be greek to us going forward it's actually the simpler safer thing just to provide all the new contact information the new the new name the new address the new account number of course one might imagine a world in which both the old and the new information were given i mean is that possible your honor yes i mean i won't argue with that that that's possible but clearly not required because if the c f p wanted to require it it wouldn't have used the flexibility may for example language is used in the staff commentary and i guess you're saying that this is all about the second open and you haven't been living with it for years receiving notices for years in conclusion i do want to meet the other mention the other point struble controls on and that standing there for disclosures that issue  to the disclosures dealt with the obligations of the borrower what the bar were had to do to ensure that they had their rights under tyla to the obligations where the banks what this co concluded is there were standing where the obligations were the consumers know standing right there with the banks and that's the same here there's nothing here unlike in struble no rights that these consumers were going to lose even assuming that this disclosure was improper in any way now there's a last minute attempt to say well they were considering a modification which isn't in the complaint but they had notice from the district court because after they filed the first amended complaint and we moved to dismiss they brought up we were confused and we were misled and the district court said that's not the complaint and yes they say he sent you two or damages and that they don't really have to go into a particular injury or damage well actually your honor and struble at page one ninety this court said the exact opposite said quote were violation of the procedure at issue presents no material risk of harm to that underline interest close quote there's no standing even though that the plaintiffs and struble were seeking statutory damages and didn't get the disclosure required by the statute and i would submit this case on all fours with the two disclosures at issue and struve over this court held there was no standing because they were not at risk thank you thank you very much briefly your honour's the official interpretation states that the new creditor may use any information that would reasonably informally consumer which loan was acquired transferred and then gives three as several disclosure pertains to your rights or obligations in the particular transaction you have standing you do not have to show monetary loss spoke you itself says that the provision of the of material information is a sufficient injury in struble for example the court held that there is no standing to challenge a disclosure requirement which would have been appropriately provided with the cabal because there was no automated transfer provision that the bank had in that case in this case information about the ownership of the loan is material it governs your it would not be necessary for us to allege what a particular impact it had in the particular case because it's moot if there is a material risk of harm when information as to ownership is not provided that's why the statute that added the requirement is called the helping families save their homes their that's what's important about it the interpretation was not complied with a act comeback is the interpretation not being complied with the language of the interpretation is uses the word flexibility suppose you had given their own world account number the old number for the loan presumably rather than th tree given that presumably the rights would not have automatically known by account number one loners being referred to they still would have had to do so work they would that it dig through a file cabinet to sync up that number with the long what's different between that and picking up the phone i mean what why is one more inflexible and the other one gives reference to a statement which has been recently furnished and which leaves a written record of what loan is being transferred picking up the phone does not do that and it's particularly inappropriate to suggest for green to suggest that picking up the phone is sufficient when they have just consented to an order finding the people picked up the phone and get misinformation relative to their lo any pleading that you have done that suggested that the phone call didn't succeed in identifying the lawyer that your client even tried it's not there's nothing in the record that so suggests thank you thank you will reserve decision