this is a national forceful entry in detainer i this is an action under section seventeen a one of the illinois mortgage foreclosure act dealing with rights of possessions of occupants were not parties to we believe that you seriously consider this case because a constitutional right what's at stake here is his constitutional rights of due process of my clients this actually started when the never existed and we had credit suisse first boston he two thousand and five that five that does that never existed so we have two entities here that never existed and so they never and so when w neither one of these parties that the right to possess because these that he said he never even exists but is there anything in the record that demonstrates that the case was brought by an imposter pretending to own the property nothing that was done and if it was you know there were you there was was somebody there that was monitoring it for your clients yes they were they were they were they aren't over thirty first before just captain they were and it was no there's nothing in the record that it says that judge kaplan even looked at the ownership of this property and at that point in time it was nothing in the record as of october thirty first that even show who was the actual owner it was an exhibit to  an attorney from representing luck and wilson was and are trying my rope thirty first correct but then isn't that the motion that you found was found after that wasn't yet we filed a motion on it after after on november fourth that's what i thought because there's nothing in terms of paper in the record that says your clients ever did anything before the motion that you're from file correct there's no  dismiss an a case that has already gone through a trial while i don't believe it was through a trial on october thirty first i'm sure is a quick trial but it was some it was a trial that disposed of the not the entire case what we were saying that as you see it what is the standard of review that we should be applying the standard to review i mean we have five different points that we're looking at and for the one that we're discussing right now what is the standard of review that you think this court should be should apply in terms of the motion to that that our motion that motion to dismiss should be actually reviewed by the court oh i know it can well that's what they ask right but what is the theme to do for if you that we should apply and wanted to resolve that i stand that's i mean i frankly i can't answer that question  the fact that it was bank national association as opposed to us bank national yet they asked for a motion to a men instanter the judge denied that motion and said i want you to and so this is her elderly mother and her elderly hug so that's how they live in in the whole and in their daughter's interest in the property has been a race by fortune of a  from several years ago he ended appellate court decision there another panel the center right which we're looking to appeal because especially because of that that a there will be supply that in the in the in our air reply but it's not in the record you know all we can consider now i understand you've been to me i understand that i mean we understand we understand that but so what do we do with that in terms of our analysis if it's not in the record that mean we have constrained by all kinds of rules as you probably know and if it's not a record it considering you mean if you appended to your brief that's interesting but this really it's not really relevant yes but but what we're dealing with your honor is not only threads which we're dealing with whereas here nancy call bank national association as trustee for credit suisse first boston heat two thousand never argued misnomer as you said it i think is it was not there's nothing in the record that says if this was a misnomer the only thing they argued was scriven is ever as a matter of fact respect to illinois is no case that deals with scrivener's er normally deal with one circumstance if this is not is not to nine months of documents and then you're all set and you say ok this is a script as ever every single document for nine months we're also dealing with the statutory rights of of our clients ok but going back to the the you know we basically argue their case was that they never served proper service of the notice all that that was my question right the whole issue of serving demand for possession i'm not i'm not i'm not so i couldn't find anything i couldn't it doesn't say yes to a threat no i mean obviously i'm not familiar with that i just know that this of statutory for regular this it in terms of following the complain skidd mean july on behalf of the freeman i mean on bank national association by the freeman law firm and you know and what we said is that they never the bank national so see ation as as trustee for credit suisse first boston he heat two thousand and five that's five but never prove that they had the right to possession you know especially at the time we just casually a decision isn't it a fact then the foreclosure order entered i think my interest griffin may be all right it was an issue in the berkeley case right that there's a quarter of possession and the order of confirmation showed the only thing was an exhibit that said it or approving the sale it in the show that the property was transferred to us bank to me at that point we had out you don't really we don't really know i think up acts of lack of records that may have been the only it was nothing that was shown and the only bad time there was anything ever shown was in december when they filed their motion to a man where they posed the attach as exhibit d the actual successful bit never got a chance to see you know that i mean we're constrained by all kinds of rules so was there any thought given to seeking an amendment before judge kaplan so that he could look at these documents that you now cla a crucial that he never saw an overall we the documents that we now see yes crucial or documents we just recently found and maybe we have to go again but the actual judge in this case was a really good scholar and just just kaplan just entered into the case with at one time but basically we had always been dealing with us kelly but in terms of going so how do we get around the problem that the case was tried with no interim therefore everything was forfeited and waiting for your clients all these potential issues are sort of down the drain because they didn't answer the meeting went through some kind of a trial but there was no ins was written by the the  misnomer is not a ground to dismiss a case right but can be corrected any time before or after judgment so if we ups assume for one b applies here how do we were first the judge's decision  those cases dealt with actual part of it with two existing potentially existing part in our case we have a non existent entity and not make this an entity with us national bank association but you're trying to convert a existing not finding that it was somebody who had possession and what they're trying to do in this case is is to end up putting a party that opposing the record exists in and in a place of somebody's non written it was corrected on a motion to one man it was the case tell us the appropriate way to bring a misnomer before the court it was post judgment which is you know directly complying with the statute and coastguardsman so you didn't know the name of your you still have the issue of the prevention notice which is required by statute that was sent out by the friedman law from i mentioned a moment ago that this that the statute doesn't specifically say you have to have the your honor the pre filing noticed as part of the same statutory framework under which the complaints in an eviction cases filed and the trial court is provided right discretion to correct the misnomer for all purposes and so and so in this case by correcting a misnomer properly and by amending it would undermine the purpose of the misnomer statute to say that when we're dealing with an entire was three thousand four hundred fifty nine and national association case in the office of rollers back with the actual we're going to we were going to find a way to raise outside of the the case you know we're talking about these notices and we do believe that that what had no power to to correct those  we actually talked to we actually talked to your west bank and yatra person had only to trust and they were the ones that told us that the press that trust does not exist so  the name of this and entity used in the acronym as opposed to the home equity ethic frost's has a full name i mean i don't know whether that acronym is is what we're dealing with all we know is that we spoke to the actual trustee at u s bank and they told that that trust as we named it they down exist they did not tell us that there was an acronym that this was the same as just other and they told us that this was