around for the plaintiffs in that in two thousand and eleven that filed the same the same case same complaint that was subsequently the defendant received judgment in a motion for summary judgment twenty four to based on lack a standing right correct based on lack of standing but unlike much of the case law where those standing arguments come in those usually come in early on in a motion to dismiss here want to curd was that the there was a motion for summary judgment which is which is different and after hearing lee the summary judgment was granted in the original complaint and the original answer all of the the various allegations were all denied and were all covered in the original answer to the complaint and when a judgment is and answered all of those issues should have been resolved at that point in time the the playoffs let me has a question since position that that case was done with that perhaps they might have some sort of subsequent if there they had some expenses or something like they have to they want to come back for that might be a different action but but yes in fact the the house is over with that that particular part of the litigation is over with because it went to summary judgment it should be noted that at any point in time during the st proceeding when the standing was raised as an issue the plainer said the option of taking a voluntary not so they could have done that up until the day of the of of the final the final ruling by the court and they did not do that they made a  those all of those things that were denied in the in the in the answer are are in fact the site and in fact that the all of the paperwork everything that that that was in the answer to the complaint the the plaintiffs deny that in fact that the money store or that the that wells fargo was the holder of the property that they didn't have the note that they didn't have any of those things and and all of those things in fact were decided by that motion for summary judgment so you're saying that's a bar subs but we do wells fargo to make those same claims against you now that's correct judge defendants here can ever be sued in court so i know not not by wells fargo ok so i'm debt to my point as well as part of can find a buyer for that no the subsequent issues then they could bring a suit we of course would defend in the same fashion that it was over with originally but oh ok so here you're going to say it's raised here today that's correct  defendants in this case own nothing correct and they record it and then they would proceed to clear title right ultimately i believe so but that would be an issue clear to clear title w on i've got a question too is it your position that the false subsequent to the earlier determination are not capable of being sued  action now for the vaults subsequent to the st action yes it is because we believe we believe that the that the that the issue is the issue a lot one of the issues all along has been that that there was a denial that wealth wells fargo was the holder of the mortgage and the holder of the note and that was raised in the in the st answer and that was and that was also determined by the by the summary judg that it was raised by the plaintiff by the defendants that there was a fraud on the heart on behalf of wells fargo in that in that the assignment of mortgage was was not done as as presented but in fact that the individual that signed the assignment of mortgage was a was a was not the from w e asked which was the holding company but was in fact an employee of wells fargo and and that it was a very specifically in which the denial was that that assignment was done by an individual excuse my is in fact absurd true for purposes of this what what we have proposed was that the summary judgment should be denied and we should have the opportunity to try this case based on the fact that that  wealth pleaded fact that it was done is presumed to be true and if that fact is true then wells fargo does not have is not the holder of the mortgage and the note that in fact it was a fraudulent transfer and that particular fact is presumed to be true pursuit you know pursuant to the rules under summary judg that's the that is the that's the main basis of our complaint about our appeal but i think it also should be and noted your honour's that we raise the fraud issue on the assignment throughout this case judgment which they could have done they came in and without notice had a voluntary dismissal order to be signed that that was subsequently vacated by the by the court as the court didn't have number one have it wasn't a judgment it wasn't a grant you know summary judgment that it was a it was a voluntary not suit and i thought we were done with that but then if you look at the defend the plaintiffs brief here they raise it again they say that  of two thousand and fifteen that they received a voluntary not that's my that's a misrepresentation to the court by my wells fargo and in fact it then goes along with the theory all along that that was a fraudulent with all of those factors your honour's we believe that the the that the judgment of the court was it was was inappropriate that the that the  years illinois supreme court precedent has been clear that a court decision on standing is not and juda cation on the merits and that's not a basis for rescue to c raise is this rule two hundred and seventy three you contends that roll to seventy three compels a result different than what the illinois supreme court has has held all these years it doesn't for reasons i touch on but i want the court to know that it does not need to dig deep into these issues because it can resolve this rule two hundred and seventy three issue very simply two grounds  fair to the circuit court to or a party on appeal to say that the circuit court did not consider a particular role when the party did not fight or advocate for that circuit court to apply that particular here for the court radiates unless the order of dismissal or a statute of this state otherwise specifies involuntary dismissal of an action other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue or for failure to join an indispensable party operates as an adjudication upon the now the illinois supreme court addressed this language  also in the downing case that we discussed earlier and this is what and this is what it said it as it specifically states will two hundred and seventy three applies only to an involuntary we were to put the is an initial threshold he says aside it's still the case back rule two hundred and seventy three does not compel result in different than an illinois supreme court precedent and it's precisely because of the pla point that was touched on by justice that although the circuit court resolved this challenge because there was no do occasional merit it could have resolved the challenge on other grounds specifically there's no identity of a cause of action because the that in fact this court address this kind of same identity a cause of action issue in subsequent foreclosure cases in the case of wells fargo bank the norris and i'm sorry once again barred by the st foreclosure suit because there were different facts involved in particular the plaintiffs involved relied on a different document and there were different amounts that went to finally i believe statement without any other evidence in the record is not sufficient to survive summary judgment many courts of address to this one court in particular have to make language that is from the st district where they say that in the interest conclusions or statements based on information the the relevant point is that the concept is argued in there and of course we can add other cases was yes how do you add those other cases that you've done your very well if there is a situation where the case is new obviously we could do a supplement to the court in this situation where i'm just providing other cases that support the arguments that we make in the brief for this court's ability to make sure that the see if the court did properly rule in this instance i'm providing another case for the court to to see that the circuit court was right and and seventy three was not brought up before the trial court that does not affect the concept of the underlying fact that you had a final judgment that that paddle applies not the final judgment the underlying facts so are supported by so that the fact that it was not raised at the trial court does not mean that that done it still was not be considered that what we have here is a something that i have not i did not find any case law quite frankly where you had a case that actually had gone to judge what you what you had a numerous occasions where were cases where either a motion to dismiss was granted or somebody had taken a voluntary nonce but that's not the case here these are these are different case the case law in that here it actually went to summary judgment here it was a final judgment because it's a summary judgment that's not that's not the same thing as a motion to dismiss and based on those