on the briefs take many twists in terms of trying to cover the subject matter but one of the things i think is key here is that rather you believe that it was the plaintiffs initial burden here to prove that they were appropriate party or the periods duty to contest that that at the summary judgment stage there was a proper meeting of that burden belief by the trial court then caused it to refuse to allow the pyrenees to supplement breach it then use that same line of reasoning to enter summary judgment despite the fact that the case has to happen because my clients should have been permitted to at least make the argument the trial court believed that we weren't even permitted to make the argument because there was no  it actually starts with the plaintiff's burden at least in this case there's some jockeying back and forth between parties about really not just an obligation on the plaintiff deplete the past i think that argument is really somewhat of a red herring because regardless we're not the statute makes it mandatory for all foreclosures it's certainly sets it out if you're going to use the what we call the statutory formal complaint the short for to prove the allegation that it's been denied i think there's just generally accepted practice it's in the coldest civil procedure that way and certainly in iowa felt this provision that covers this is well and it's fifteen now normal people practice all i have to do is deny that fact which is what my client did so with that knowing we would issue and my clients now should be able to test that allegation the trial court didn't see it that way the trial court ruled plane itself probably issue to the table it can't be reasonably argued that they're somehow now surprised that my client see proof i don't feel that even if it is going to be he'll be in front  conclusion that it was automatic and that's throughout the record several pages of the oral argument of the two hearings that related to this issue the trial court of more than one occasion said this is automatically a way where one any particular case where there is a bold statement that you do not have to file for instance with the statute sleep says that that it lays out a list of examples of types of things th that the distinction may need to be made is because the i'm a phil uses the word passive and that is the allegation that my clients are attacking so to the extent that one court may say well if you're going to call a lack of standing to it does holders each you've got to be one of those two things that's only thing i'll give you can pass and i think trying to answer your question of reason i think there's a distinction is generally speaking the courts define standing is someone happened in interest in the litigation well using that rock terminology here might be deceptive because the owner of the know the person who actually owns the debt may not hold that no i'm sure john isn't sat on many cases involving more mortgages and notes in you understand that distinction that that's two completely different concepts holding the know and only the owner of the know clearly has some interest in collecting the money and how that know it's being enforced same thing because you can have the capacity foreclose and not have an interest in a no or vice versa you can happen interest in a no but still not have the right to foreclose if you're not the hold and i think that's one of the stations i yes yes murderers x is this computerized registry system that's it it's a place we're what database where they keep track of mortgage stock i think they probably do have it because they did become the legal title holder of that mortgage but they have the right to assign it legal title to someone else the problem is that's very making the sign it when it comes to the as far as i'm an bill's concerned that's the struggle i have with a mers assignment is that by itself still doesn't tell me who's the no holder and if there's no holders agent all the  to complicate what i believe is is a pretty pretty straightforward case here  either illinois mortgage foreclosure law or under the under the case law and i would just but notice well i think counsel narrows the definition of mortgagee a bit too much he seems to indicate that twelve the motion for summary judgment was filed again there was no request follow amended pleading prior to that the fall of response to the motion for summary judgment which was just it does not state what is insufficient about the evidence that does not go on as counsel comes to do and we've argued that it's waived argue specific effects supposedly and the affidavit it does it does he says that the complaint may substantially follow that form we would again argue that it's not that's not a mandatory requirement here certainly our capacity was put in the complaint  know i'm not sure that they are the same thing i see this far as what alerts the lawyer i mean that there's ample case law on this issue and the attorney practicing in this field since certainly be well aware that they must lead and demonstrate stant lack of standing as an affirmative defense if they're defending a mortgage foreclosure case ok as as i understand m complain and you say no that that is and that isn't who i believe is the proper plaintiff i've been making my payments to you some other party may request my service or they told me this again i acknowledge as your honor points out that the record is not completely clear image does appear also the original documents were produced at the the hearing for the motion for summary judgment is this far as is there are a nice clean record where evidence that either murders or it were acting as that agent of who ever know holder is this we still don't know that when they found the complaint so i think that in a nutshell shows you that it was my client do not  we're getting that from you not a lawyer you're not a judge you're not giving us the contract that supposedly authorized you to do this you're just giving us your legal opinion of what right your employer adds which i