motions to dismiss which were granted by the trial court of one no essential errors that i believe was made by the trial court with respect to both defendants was not a proper hereis to the appropriate did in addition to that there was some argument made by both of the defendants that somehow more clients claim to seek rescission it was time barred there was not a lot of time spent the chronology was accurate in the first place but it's now a point because even if the chronology was accurate the supreme court's resolve that issue so then we move along mostly to what occurred in connection with first snow this is actually the second time at least two of the three parties have been before this court in connection with the sloan in connection with the first appeal we actually saw my client's allegations were on it for what they were on both the fin to spend some time on him an argument that my client shouldn't play it how or when he was going to pay the loan back pleads out or says that the consumer has to plead how or when they're going to give back the money that was known to them instead the statue has its own people procedure for dealing with that issue in an issue he's not even supposed to be addressed specifically common on the fact that the common law concepts of rescission do not apply to the team and i think that answers the question for this court now as to rather not mr bush should be required to allege how or when that bringing up these new proceeding or lage theme defects that central mortgage or service are in the record would be prejudicial to mr bush because there were other things that happened there weren't required to be played and so they weren't and because they good afternoon your honour's make peace accord my name is luminati represent defendant at will be central mortgage company your honour's this case was born out of mr bush's failure to act timely in a separate foreclo in this pattern of tardiness without any explanation to the trial court timely own was repeated in this case it led to a procedural posture where mr bush made all of his arguments for the first time in a motion reconsider before the tr the motion reconsider based on your matters such as new legal theories and new arguments that were not made in the progression leading to the order that's being challenged a court of your employees an abuse of discretion standard this is essential holding of the  central mortgage company in its rip brief regarding standard review in that case the court says see as the plaintiff's motion to reconsider in this instance was based on a new legal theory the standard of review in this instance is abuse of discretion in fact the county collector case that bush cites in his reply brief in that he's the only supreme court characterizes its task is to determine whether or not the trial court abused its discretion when in allow a new constitutional argument in a motion for here doesn't include any language that this showing doesn't have to be made in certain types of motions to reconsider where all the arguments are made for the first time so the case was clearly mr bush needed a reasonable explanation to why he didn't make the showing why didn't argue this in the first act through foreclosure cases and humility throughout this case in the motion to reconsider taking the tally of mr bush's actions here and are important to foreclosure because they need to the creation of this case into foreclosure mr bush file from the defense the late in this case by mr bush is a fact that months later he wanted enormous order existed at a separate hearing in the foreclosure case which is consolidated with this one he admitted it summary judgment he knew this order existed but it wasn't until summary judgment was entered in the foreclosure case that he decided to bring a motion reconsider six months after the order was entered in this case on and he didn't provide an explanation the motion as true while he failed to act why he waited six months and why was just bringing all these arguments for the first time now this was really a strategic choice by mr bush having to do with how he wants of you this case related to the foreclosure days i won't point mr bush thought that this case and the foreclosure case because they tenure which mr brooks brought up in his opening remarks the dismissal bush claims was proper because at no point did he articulate or show an ability to tender decision amounts and in fact as the case went on it became apparent rejected that invitation and said no she was different in the context of what it means to have a correct procedure know is we're not going to adopt on the rescission principles and say you need to do more but they didn't resolve what you need to do to tender or how that's properly bush regarding whether or not tender is a pleading requirement and even acknowledged that it is an important aspect of decision and in fact the longer it versus freddie mac they've knowledge that at some point in the case it could become very relevant whether or benefit to claim well you like to touch on the in his interview with the lay that's exacerbated in this case particularly because now this case and a foreclosure case against such a mortgage have the same claims and the continuing pursuit of this case is a direct have been operative in the circuit court will county in the foreclosure case and so it compounds his failure to appropriately and diligently pursue this case that it should not loan to his benefit but it does when it creates profound uncertain y when he's pursuing this case while the identical duplicative litigation is currently before the circuit court of the county it because this is delayed in the foreclosure because it's pursuing this case it means that much longer before the central issue of rescission is to fully determined and so any negative consequences that spring from the splintering of bush's claims in pursuing them here and now in the foreclosure action where the identical things exist any negative consequences should be borne by most reconsidered to the extent that he had any opportunity to preserve those issues regarding the letter of decision the motion reconsidered doesn't raise any theory about timeliness because of one year from the notice he only argues  and that the the argument here is not that they weren't received but that they weren't received on time they weren't received at the closing when they should have been given in terms of the timeliness of the disclosures section six hundred thirty five disclosures and the receipt of the notice of right to cancel so if you take the paintings as they are the three big periods to rescind the loan began to run on march twenty first the day that mr bush actually received the disclosure them and that he came back to the title company four days later and at that point he was asked to sign an overt action not to resend was given copies of the documents and then that would have been the point at which the through