district judges the mishal decision granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings of this issue of whether the debt needed to be in default of the hanssen case handsome versus santander by the u s supreme court case was decided in june two thousand and seventeen which was after the briefing on the motion for judgment of the pleadings and the district court in making that holding of default a one off the board that had not actually even been an issue because the claims arise out of the condo purchase right and so this is it's not even though it's not for assessments the entire relationship between the purchase arise out of the condo purchase and in fact  i'm sorry did you don't have a question well i yes because mr speak all characterize the district court's order is finding that the death arose from litigation not spiegel's purchase of his condominium and that's it page twenty four dollars of your brief but the district court actually says quote but it does not arise from the litigation conduct that's what the appellant is trying to say that it arises from the litigation conduct but the fact that they originally sued spiegel and the land trust and this is cited in the in the shows that the transaction arose not from spiegel's individual actions as a board member or his misconduct in litigation but from the underlying transaction of the condo purchase if there's no condo purchase there's no declarations there's no rules and regulations everything that defines this relationship stems back from the condo purchase which this court has held comes within the purview of the f t c p s a because it's a transaction primarily for household  purposes mr lancme can i can i ask your question to really rewind to where you started yes your honor you made the point if i understood you right that the district court committed a legal error by not following the rule that the united states supreme court announced in its hanson versus santander decision ok i'll tell you i didn't read the decision before argument today because i didn't see you talk about it and so i went into your briefs just now and you cite it one time but not for the proposition that you advanced in the courtroom today so can you just step back a nd and tell me a little bit more about hans the district court and the default test was abrogated by hanson versus santander one where on page twenty two of our brief i'm sorry that the supreme court abrogates the default test and we cite to the it's know it's not in your table of authorities all to go ahead go ahead i don't want to take your time up ok page twenty two we cite henson versus santander offer the proposition of the default test is misplaced the  supreme court in henson has repealed the default test we follow up so your point is the debt doesn't have to be in default that way and that's what they just recorded originally i guess i got you right but you didn't have the benefit of hanson because it hadn't been decided at the time stamp you're saying  gone do you believe there are any tort claims against your client in the state court proceeding no we don't believe that there are any  theory here is this is these are all contract claims all arising more or less indirectly from the condo purchase correct the contract that governs that purchase does allow for attorney's few words correct for failure to pay assessments for violations of the rules and regulations after a thirty dollars day remedy notice which was not was asserted in the state court complaint which sought to clear a jury judgment an injunction about spiegel claiming to be the board's acting president that doesn't sound to me like a consumer debt the transaction is the condo purchases the consumer debt but the litigation doesn't sound like it's about any consumer debt and the right and the request for the attorneys fees was was made before the litigation misconduct even occurred i mean that's why they're trying to shove three hundred dollars pages of additional you know twenty eight thousand dollars records to try to somehow you know if i mak improper request in a complaint and then for attorney's fees and then the defendant files totally frivolous affirmative defenses and makes false representation violates rule eleven in one thousand nine hundred and seven and gets sanctioned that doesn't justify my threat for attorney's fees in the initial complaint going and i think is unfortunate here in reading this is it's it's disheartening to see the temperature turned up so high in litigation so let's let's step back for one second ok i thought that the reason your adversary was went into cook county to ask for attorney's fees had to do with all of these alleged or demonstrated it does you know alter of europe's acts as a board member when when your client was serving as a board member of the condo association i didn't think it was like to collect back rant or you know anything like that i thought it was all about board service it wasn't to collect assessments otherwise it you know that would be proper under the contract right that's exactly why it's an improper request it's if if the lawsuit or if the lawsuit that gave rise to the request for attorney's fees was all about board service that's where i get disconnected with your point that it's all about the fact that he lived at a particular location and bought a condominium there i don't know it's not about that it's about whatever went on with the board service and you know what what the other side thought was wrong about that under the fair debt collection practices act and talk about the underlying case for which he is my client has been sued is has allegedly violating that act but i think your question suggests exactly what he did retained by this kind of mini association to restrain what they termed as a renegade director from taking over the association claiming to be the acting kim fashion this complaint and that's why he went to court court to get it declared who the true order directors was who the true property action so when other words can i just stop you there because if the state court affirms the award of the czerny's fees against related to the condo purchase does the does the contract the governors the relationships among the condominium owners which provides for attorney fees in some situations are there are those limited to the failure to pay assessments under the contract no because they they go on and and i have been here but they go on to provide for any violation of any rule or regulation or you know  released virtually nothing to do about what the f t p ca's about which is debts arising out of personal or family or put a claim for attorney's fees in a case when you have it you have an underlying claim the underlying claim in this in the state court litigation was we want to restrain mr spee one minute of the whole grovelling of the relationship to address your honor's question arises from this transaction to purchase transaction there is no he can't be a board member if he's not a condo owner look there's the fact that this is a jury assertion that a but condo purchaser the per but for the condo purchase there wouldn't have been the accident in the defendant in the tort action wouldn't have been responsible for but that would be and it doesn't involve the relationship concerning the condo owner in the association slip and fall right so and it's an independent tort negligence socially slip and fall in the common area there's right but it still would not that stems from a duty independent of the of the of the board that the declaration of