oh you're on kevin mckenna representing the appellant this is a case about the mechanics of a mortgage foreclosure now the case of intentions simply put to do a foreclosure he has to be a before in the mortgage mess to be so it doesn't make any difference who paid it if it was paid you can excel or a therefore you can foreclose the security industry their contracts are eroding the those of us who practice in the trenches sort of speak trying to stop foreclosures we don't know is know who's doing a foreclosure the issue of whether or not nine mortgages has been paid to the trustee can be foreclosed and that's the simple issue that is a claim that is not few tile it's in every single security agreement that i've looked at and it should be addressed we shouldn't have foreclosures when there are no trial or asians and that's the number my argument  tent intent makes any difference this is an event the if my mother in law pay my mortgage does that mean my mortgage is not paid in ten doesn't make any different i think that is a  show argument that has nothing to do with the statute that says you have to have to have a default which allows you to accelerate which then allows you to foreclose and  that wasn't their intent so basically be it but that's the effect of what they did that's the result you might say were third party beneficiary but the doesn't mean because you only thing at stake here is whether they can be a none judicial foreclosure that's it it's not about who pays it's about whether or not they can take property that before nonpayment occurs and  pathans that's what they design with the magnificent agreements which they file many pages long in the securities exchange commission or that the in this case at fannie mae crafts and the ahead of the line which they had signed on a note if you have a thirty year know it won't want to take it in five years so it's a remedy doesn't talk about how much is zero but if the monthly payment is me you can foreclose that this quoting seems like they didn't realize i'm doing all this contract work that was the effect of what they did but they didn't they want to foreclose with that particular no they can sell  to somebody and say here's a note and we'll give it to you you pay for it and if they don't pay you can you can on your own as an individual no outside of the trust foreclose it's the it's a procedural quoth and that's that's why i you know i think every sink they don't deny that the owners do not deny that the security agreements say it in black and white so there's no disputed fact here  therefore i would ask this court to allow the human and i think you so much for your time thank  amended complaint when it was clear that this amendment would appear on the same grounds in the same theory that mr mckenna just described which they had already admitted to the court were were legally insufficient and there is no plausible way they could have made their case on the third and amended complaint any more than they did on the second amended complaint which they admitted to the court was deficient in addition the court did not abuse its discretion when it entered the dismissal of the hand a case with prejudice so on both those cases and as not only the court below here has found but as the central district of california has found on the identical case and as the district of rhode island has found on the identical case it securities market works through all the basics of that big be happy to answer questions about it but i think that it's perhaps more useful to just look at the practical ramifications of what the  theories are if you look at page two hundred in paragraph two hundred six of their nine hundred some paragraph third amended proposed thirty men to complaint they say that they have explode expose in the legality of the entire mortgage securitization foreclosure practices and that if their right services would no longer forward the advances in question because they would not be non recoverable so the scope of the challenge that they present would be of some great concern given the role of the mortgage industry in the world economy except for the fact that there are simply wrong on their legal theories and i think that first  admit that they you know by the allegations of the complaint they admit that they haven't paid their mortgages they admit that the more or the mortgage loans they admit that the mortgages included statutory power of sale and although my brother talks about there being no default it certainly is the certainly is the fault of the note first of all and i think you had a right rich hit when you said when you asked what evidence there is that the payments that delinquency advances and those are called advances for reason they are not payments on the no they're not payments on behalf of the borrowers obligation as would be necessary under the u c c their payments on a separate instrument the trust agreements their payments that are meant as you identif to ensure there's a income stream going back to the certificate holders and let's remember that's the way this interesting works the interest the certificate holders are making investments and they're making investments because there is a steady stream of income that is a relationship that goes to the certificate holders in fact it provides it's the capital that allows these mortgages to be made these mortgage loans to be made in the first instance but they're certainly not anything to instead it's a secondary and separate obligation you know what happens in the case of payments have become so late that interest is crewing sort of penalty interest if if and when that is what happens to those interest payments under the arrangements here i don't know that i know that specifically or are could take a guess that it's accrued on account of the loan in question that if there is a foreclosure that those payments if made by the servicers or if made by fannie and it's yet guaranty capacity would be subject to being recovered by the structure of the trust the grammar so if if in a case where it's short foreclosures somebody got way behind and so they had to pay the the late payment penalties i just wonder where that that money ends up under the arrangements  believe but it's not really an issue that's been focused on in the case so i can't answer you definitively i believe it would go to i'm not sure where we go we did hear we go into the pool attributable to that  or where it doesn't know i don't believe it ends up with the investors because the inventor of it does have a certain defined stream of income that they're entitled to under their certificates i think that the interesting to follow in the arguments of the borrowers is really to go through the looking glass and to go through the looking glasses to look at what would happen in a stand two standard cases the first case is that you have a mortgage which is securitized as many mortgages in this nation are and in which the borrower makes all of his or her payments of principal and interest every month in that case according to the theory the bar were the mortgage and the trust would have been in forcible mortgage interest no question so if you make your payments the bank has a mortgage if however you have a securitized mortgage and you stop making your mortgage payments then there's a booby trap in the in the trust agreement and by by operation of their theory the interest the mortgage basically evaporates and there's no possible foreclosure so under their theory the very instance that is meant to be protected by the mortgage or nonpayment of the principal and interest evaporates as soon as that event occurs there's really no law that lead you to that conclusion and there's really and then there should be no law to lead you to that conclusion because it's a conclusion which to put it in the context of what the district court had does not make a plausible claim for the be happy to answer additional questions with regard to the u c c would be happy to answer questions with regard to the surety ship argument should the court reach it as noted in our papers it is properly considered and happy to an answer further questions with regard to the entry the appropriate entry within her discretion of the missile with prejudice of the head of case thank you thank you humans not about the debt it's about using the remedy that trigger a foreclosure you can't use it on the massachusetts law if the monthly installments are up to date when designed is a no for trust they don't they can excel in there and therefore in the massachusetts state law they can't quote thank you