g before you is a question of state law st impression under idaho law regarding whether a property real parcel number satisfies idaho's by reference option for describing property in a number serves as a record within it incorporating other outside evidence that is not pearl evidence impermissible parole evidence in the context of the statute of frauds is the subject of the intent or numbers on so it's on saw and that's all backed up by meets and bounds description if i understood the record correctly here that's not what you have here is a pretty substantial piece of property and if you were if i were a surveyor and i went out there and i took that i could not tell exactly what partial is covered is that correct i submit that's incorrect ok and i submit that that's incorrect because the real parcel number at issue in this case clearly archives and retrieves from the r p n is to this parcel master inquiry right because the r p n and the agreement don't reference the deed so you need something to get from this number over to the deed right that's correct the real parcel number is the record under idaho law from which a complete legal description can be had consistent with the allen rule but what you have to do as i understand it is you enter the r the county's website or the county recorder's office and you find a relevant number and then you have a relevant number you can pull up the deed from the county recorder's office and then from  that you can pull up the sufficient legal description correct that is correct your honor i mean having done it so i thought that was probably correct you are but then at that point it doesn't seem to me that the  record it's merely in the den of fire something used to label a record organize the records well in our pan in of itself under a number of idaho statutes clearly is a record and write a law whether it be title sixty three chapter two which would be to go to as a number facilitates of not i mean i am having a tough time stand up that's a record it's something i use as a starting point for the search of evidence that actually contains the exact description of the property and that is consistent with the alan rule under idaho law i don't lock provides a multi step process it's not a one additional step process rather the language of allen as well as ben trust is expansive board so you can give a description it only references documents that give the description right you were after an r p n at the district court you made a different argument that i respectfully submit is incorrect well we're just a minute in the district court you argued there were three adana fires a street address an r and a site map whether they all provoke lect of lee provided the exact description and in this instance the focus is on the r p n because that is the the record under idaho state law that leads you to and specifically i can point you to it in our reply brief page three footnote one we've never said that the r p n standing alone the purchase of sale agreement does commission those letters numbers and digits and their position themselves convey information section town range city county but in addition lead you to the deed but how is this different than the address because the idaho supreme court has told us the address is not enough even if you could take the address and start to find some other information so how is an r p n different from address well a common street address i'm not aware of being any kind of statutory obligation under idaho law that a county or any other body corporate or politic maintain street address and perhaps the simplest example of making the distinction of the fact that those two items are different from one address clearly street address and real parcel numbers are two different things serving different purposes is your position apologize if i seem to be repeating the question i asked before is it your position if the server was using the contract itself that answer is no good but you are reading out of idaho law the entirety of the by reference option which is exactly what the district court did here which is exactly what  the contract itself and that's the problem i don't hold law says that you can either describe a property in a purchase and sale agreement either by terms or by reference to some external or extrinsic document now i understand that there's potential confusion here over what is impermissible extrinsic or parole evidence versus permissible extrinsic or parole evidence you can't have a by reference option under law that does not include some form of external or extrinsic evidence you know my guess the difficulty here is that even if it would be permissible to do it you're saying when you actually go and look at what you brought forward and you brought forward this parcel master inquiry you then use that to get us to the deed but the parcel masseur inquiry contains all this other information about tax lot numbers the deed itself references different r p m and and so you've you've come forward with something but the standard is that we have to know the exact property description and there's a lot of information here that's not explained well that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the information in either the parcel inquiry report or the contents of scuse me its name slipped my mind the smith declaration at excerpts of record two hundred and eighteen through two hundred and twenty nine that doesn't mean all that information is relevant what is relevant under the law is whether it's a record from which a complete legal description can be had if it is a record from which a complete legal description can be had in this instance the deed instrument number i submit that that qualifies could go back several different me st answer the question that doesn't require a hypothetical answer you know like well not necessarily the fact of the matter is that the real parcel number available in this instance under cesky is me total sixty three chapter two idaho code ties to a specific piece of property and it is supported by meets and bounds description where so that is where excuse me that is where under i don't code section sixty three to ten into nineteen when a property is supported by meets and bounds legal description that is when you get tax law numbers further identified under the r p n you kind of circular and you're saying when it's supported and i'm saying how do you get the meats and valves description from what you had in the deal because the database entry of the real parcel number leads you directly to that deed and in this instance apologize i was confusing the point is when you have a meets and bounds described property that real parcel number by law is required to have behind it that me description ok again i'm a californian if you went to the if you went to the tax map in california it would not contain a full description it would be a partial reach and bound description  so it's not you know it's not a lot where you have homes on it's it's got out there probably going to develop it but the bottom line is you're telling me that under idaho law that the meets and bounds description associated with  tax parcel is a complete meets involves description so that my hypothetical surveyor could take that go out and be able to form and perform an exact survey that is correct including the exclusions because that meets and bounds legal description is what allows a tax number be assigned by statute under idaho law it's a requirement if you wind up with tax lots that means you have to meet some precise which property location can be ascertained says guys i know statutes of fraud invent trust in particular and two thousand and sixteen and as i understand it we're when we're in this particular instance we're not looking just at the you our street it well i'm not even relying on street address because there's an error in the street address ok i am relying on city state county and the r p n which is more complete than what was it issue in re which is that is elegant in its simplicity and flexibility accommodating modern record keeping excuse me generation in record keeping practices and it's a from which standard not and in which standard i'm not asking this court to rewrite binding idaho precedent i'm just asking you to follow it thank you thank you very much acres as was pointed out in our read our brief in response to the motion for the court take judicial notice of some partial maps we pointed out that if you added up the acres that are shown on the parcel master in court i'm sorry on that document itself the subplots it actually comes out to one hundred and forty eight ninety one acres there is an inconsistency within those documents the allegations many one hundred and forty eight  address some of those points that have been addressed by the panel with my opposing counsel it strikes me that the appellant's here of attempted to transform the underline document the core document the agreement in something that's far different from what judge benson looked at in its substantive content they've also minimized to the point of extinction this reference to the interim document called the partial master inquiry and it importance here and then they have intent at tempted to reinterpret in restructure for the i don't supreme court itself what its own pronouncements have been concerning the requirements of property descriptions under the idaho statute of frauds specifically nine quinn road which was incomplete and therefore incorrect it should have been six hundred and sixty nine west quinn road followed by the city pocatello the county bannock idaho eighty three thousand two hundred and one in other words and this is important the references to the city of public telephone the county of banach in the state of idaho in the zip code are part of the denoted physical address of the property nothing more than that then in a subsequent blank line immediately following the entirely separate pre printed phrase on line twelve of that are a twenty three written agreement there is simply a typed in eleven character alphanumeric entry which i won't read but it is in the record nothing more than that no descriptive modifiers of any sort appear next to that alpha numeric entry anywhere on line thirteen of the contract and then finally in a further subsequent blank line immediately following the disjun phrase disjunctive phrase or legal description attached as exhibit blank there is a reference to a sitemap so through sheer force of repetition in the briefing and this morning the appellant's would like to have this court perceive that the blank at the end of the line after the preprinted phrase legally described as contains some kind of broad fulsome phrase like banach county idaho real partial number r p and r p c p p etc so can you help me with something if i understand the record correctly your party is the seller correct correct correct ok normally sellers would be involved in the preparation of ca drugs are you not involved in the signing it was or is your client involved in the preparation that's going to the agreement was prepared by a real real tour and presented to the parties their health all right but your  client went to the closing right so my client wanted to sell the property my client went to the closing as described in our brief there were indications as we moved toward closing th particular buyer had no means to close on this property nonetheless we wanted to try to sell it so we did submit all the paperwork my client did to the title company showed up at the closing was prepared to sell the property for the correct your honor the my client wanted to sell the entirety of his gateway west industrial center the only reason the statute of frauds issue was raised as a defense was when we were sued it was a response to that one of two things would have prevented us from being here today either roger featherston the purported buyer had the money and was able to close on the property or the agreement issue had attached a legal meets and bounds description of the property if either of those things that happened we wouldn't be here today but the appellant's would like this court to perceive that the appears this fall some phrase but it doesn't and it there's just this free standing alphanumeric entry in judge benson correctly found in our view that alone is not a clear and unambiguous reference to any  county records at the same time and this goes to an issue the panel has raised the appellant's would like to pretend to have this court join them that there are no other property descriptors on the page namely an incorrect street attached as blank both sides of the blank both side both blanks on either side of the word or are filled in logic dictates it seems to me that they have to be the same if it's one or the other but both are filled in they have to be the same and if they're not that goes to the confusion that this particular contract did not as required by i don't law exactly describe the property to be transferred as i look at th you have somebody who may be a really nice person but obviously not a lawyer blew it they believe the legal description perhaps initially neither party knew that so what do we do in a contract for an essential term of a contract is inadequate neither party knows it and the person who drew it is neither one of the parties it was a matter of contract law what do we do well i don't think here you can reform it because what we're bound by are the requirements of the it ultimately comes back to that and the only relevant evidence in that respect is the agreement itself and any extrinsic evidence directly referred to in the agreement that's the standard of the idaho supreme court and judge benson carefully analyzed all of this and and said this agreement does not contain an exact description of the property and even went so far with respect to the parcel master inquiry the judge  bres has mentioned a couple of times to say i'll take judicial notice of that it's something that you can get but even when you go to the parcel master inquiry it contains a dozen or fifteen line items of data and data points it doesn't provide an exact description of the property it does not define what if the what if the parcel master inquiry did have a specific meets and bounds description on it would your argument be different i don't think so because again i don't think that the freestanding alphanumeric entry on there is no as judge benson found is not a clear and unambiguous reference to county records i just don't think you can get to that point of even looking for one of those line items that will say oh well there's a reference to a deed number keep in mind the judgments and when he looked at that person master inquiry he did a perfectly reasonable thing he focused on a caption in there that says legal description and then he looked at the tax parcels under their various tax lots listed under that legal description caption and he said i see that but i exact description of the property finally i want to address if i may the what i view as the appellant's attempt to redefine and restructure for the idaho supreme court what is pronouncements are as to the requirements for legal descriptions or for property descriptions in real estate contracts the alan case decided in said use this language is said in the allen case it's said in the case at bar there is no reference to any record or external or extrinsic description from which a complete description could be had it's that phrase that  have seized on and said well that must be the controlling standard in idaho and thereby throws open the door opens the umbrella or whatever metaphor we want to use to any multi step process by which you can eventually track down a deed that in some way relates to and may have a legal description beetson bounce description of some property before i forget to mention it that doesn't solve the problem here because the agreement only referred to a single parcel number as the record is clear this is a multi parcel property within its extra no boundaries comprises five different parcels only four of which are owned by  show that the actual acreage of the property is greater than the acreage of the single parcel number that's referred to in the contract if that's the case that only not that not only leads to confusion it could lead to supreme court itself actually said in the seminal case in two thousand and nine of ray versus frazier it said in alan we indicated that a contract that references any record or external or extrinsic description from which a complete description could be had sufficiently describes the real property for purposes of the statute of frauds in the very next sentence the court said the contract in allen neither contained  complete description of the real property nor referred to any external record containing a sufficient description in the very next paragraph court says this again is the two thousand  our approach in allen required that the contract either contain a sufficient description of the real property or refer to an external record containing a sufficient property description so in explaining what the the court itself meant in the allen case the re opinion makes clear that in using the words contain or containing four times in two sentences to describe what they meant in al alan was expressly construed by the out of supreme court itself to mean contain you can't just go through a multiple process to find something that may work the in this case of course we that you have several parcels involved here so the reference to a single parcel would be inadequate to describe the entire property correct correct and i suppose one way to test that would be if if everything were to change suddenly and the appellant's were able to close tomorrow and in the purchase of this property would they accept back a deed that simply made a reference to a single parcel number i suggest that they would not and rightly so because it is not coextensive with the prior deed that defines the entirety of the property interestingly in their attempt here in this court to escape their reply brief they said to the extent the records use of the term contain can be read as modifying and further refining from the from which language of alan the totality of the ray opinion demonstrates that any modification  the allen approach was unintentional well i don't know how the appellant's are able to divine what the item supreme court did not intend to do when it used repeatedly very expressive language  contain and containing used repeatedly and i think intended to be used repeatedly to establish very clearly what i'd host danders are for property descriptions and in the real estate contracts i have one final question does the fact that the potential buyers do not have the resources to comply with the contrary does that play in any any role at all in this decision i