song before so we don't have your time so again i don't mind telling you this case has if not complexity some degree of novelty with this number and then you agree so you have to indulge me r us since the case may be just be a little more expansive chary than you would ordinarily think you would be let's say  regard to the entire case property interests that the carp's well i think if i might take the liberty of the focal issues alternately it's not a beginning of your argument have got to be whether  the trial judge was correct in his up determination that this case was not right for declaratory judgment because no foreclosure action initially that's why the first complaint was dismissed and then get first amended complaint was filed in which the foreclosure action was drawing discount seventh of a complaint and nevertheless the complaint in its entirety was dismissed by the court which we felt was appropriate for a variety of reasons first of all we believe that there were that fraudulent transfers that took place under the uniform fraudulent transfer act this is the fourth mistake but you're not going to get a fra are if your if the court believes that the retain their character of being a tenancy by the i'm tired now is that also the case and no i'm not because i haven't seen anybody are you otherwise when you argue pleading you know the fact that's no longer  us what we can do as far as i've been able to find in my research what we can do with regard to the proceeds of the entirety of property we referred to this or cases that we were able to locate in other jurisdictions and  in those cases even though there are facts that lend themselves to a bleeding out consumption there's those cases don't i don't deal with exactly the situation we have but they do deal with  going in the state of illinois that the if that intent follows and therefore that that's going to be part and parcel of the entire his property then then that will be your ruling that will be you will find that there was  submitted in the record below which didn't really go to the two six one nine botia but simply tried to controvert they all occasions they complained with no they weren't intending to use the florida properties or homes the property w not going to be an entire his property shouldn't make a difference but in point of fact if it wasn't going to be a tendency by entire big number of things could happen maybe at that point you bad because you now have a traditionally a staff from saying it's anything other than a tenancy by entirety until you get an education somewhere so you better hope we rule against you i not i'm not able to address that your honor i don't believe that there is there is an established but here's here's the issue either when these parties made a mortgage for the benefit one of the joint tenants at the time that took place in two thousand and six and they say essentially made a transfer who says it's for the benefit of one of the joints of one of the no reason why isn't just for the the issue could have been reached dead but was not because the case was dismissed next question becomes assuming for the moment that there was a transfer did the does the doing billy's just ripping the equity here putting the equity into the property in florida you're transferring that equity to florida so that he this property and entire years is sitting here and that's what i have to look for in the event that  little warning of what i want to hear about so the issues here are several and the reason third i see the issue of bleed out this theory of an equity strip is not simply one of my own imagination we facts we know what took place but just in illinois since you're not giving us any real help in illinois i'm vicki initial question that i asked what happens when you're dealing with proceeds that are not out if we also assume that the al trust is for the benefit of bob and the fact that that this is simply a pleading is not going to stand by you since you're admitting that you're the case why i think bleeding out if there simply moving from one tenant seat by its entirety to another using the proceeds of the first the fun the sack because my priority of your only if if the issue here is determined by the court is that the proceeds if if if sought to be put into the hands of one of the the even if they try to move those proceeds into a entireties property down in florida because at that point they're trying to move that property that was in the hands of linda into the jo simultaneously so either of you know if that's the case then the transfer as you would want to characterize and maybe correct of the assets of  conveyance of the ast stuff back assets is still protected and asked such your rights if at all would be not because this property will still remain protected i mean i'm asking a question i don't share ignorance i think that the difference in this case is that we don't have a circumstance where the property that was originally the entirety of property here in illinois was sold and the assets the proceeds move to another property or bank heading that other purchase or some other stuff you where you hear that circumstance like the cases that we cited other jurisdictions where there was a movement of the proceeds from here to here yet therefore the court could determine that the character of the entirety is based upon the of the parties is determined to trial in those cases where it is to maintain those s s those proceeds as entireties property here we have a different story we hear the cops trying to assert that they are protected here in illinois by the entire nis label but the same time if they stand before you would argue that they have moved these proceeds by virtue of the mortgage to florida but those are also protected who gets they have to entire would deviate from the other states to follow the tenancy by entirety through the proceeds into the subsequent in fast mind without calling it once the illinois property at a point where the mortgage is released if we would follow your reasoning all the way down the course that we would have to say that the release of the mortgages in fact a new conveyance and that new conveyance would be them subordinate to your judgment am i right or wrong i'm don't agree with me because i'm the judge i  understand your reasoning here either i don't agree that that's the only circumstance under which i get to a trial of my complaint in this case because the circumstances are such that there has been under the a transfer act it effort to to make the transfer of the mortgage he had whether or not you follow the transfer back at the at the release of the mortgage or whether or not you file a transfer out these but york your argument is it would only hold water if the proceeds would not otherwise be protected into the florida property as would be the case under virginia law and tennessee law and the law of the other states as cases you assign it because it's not a fraudulent conveyance to florida because i'm back line of reasoning they have taken i'm protected fines and attempted to mask them or longer in them to protect your argument if anything would have to be specifically directed to the release of markets into the chicago property by saying this is a fraudulent conveyance and then you would have to challenge you  saying what fraud they never misrepresented what they were doing the the the most honest back and answer that question you're right here is i may not be as smart as you but i can tell you that my understanding my theory of my reasoning in this case is that if you have a circumstance as you just out where the parties intention was clear where you don't have been to cover citing that note but both of them signed the mortgage where you don't happen to carp using a trust if we believe that we played it was a sham trust in order to accomplish this transaction where you don't have those circumstances going on well then make the room to trust thinking that they were using it as a shield but they didn't need to they would have been more protected from your claim if if the boat were the signatory to the sale and both bought the florida property perhaps now is the fact that they might have been devious the same as being fraudulent if in fact they have not there was intent to make a transfer to defraud creditors to keep the property in illinois out of the reach it particularly your own craps one half of the property while at the same time allowing the focus of the fraudulent transfer is now not later run away when they decide you know well one of the damages the focus is was it a fraudulent transfer at the time that the transfer was m tenancy by entirety and what that means that they use to accomplish that on the i'm interested more in the first six week if we look at the start of this transaction the first transaction that's complained when they transferred that the mortgage when they made the mortgage for the benefit of another entity that is not one of the joint tenants owners of the entirety property the focus at that point is to strip away but you florida without that i have to plead in the alternative with me last year i was like the alternative this is your main line it's theirs there's questions about whether or not i can go after the  cops submitted to the court at the trial court below by their affidavit that it wasn't their intention to create a homestead in florida but it wasn't their intention bungling here about that issue but in the meantime that's a release you you do you now want to switch places which arguments based on the which way you think the way the wind is blowing up here i'm suggesting here honor that how can we think this determine what the intention of these parties were and make a providing me with a stepladder very killed it and put together in your brief you're telling me what really happened here and that al hunt was holding you for the that that that that he is that that he is in admission i believe that there's a question of fact as to whether or not that actually occurred that maybe we'll laugh we'll certainly look at but i i want to make sure that we don't misunderstand the dynamic of your position there's an issue with regard to the bank's argument that they should have been and were properly dismissed could say was it should i want to raise the issue with regard to count two would a way and is not part of this case as i mentioned in the pleadings with regard to count six and specifically the civil conspiracy the question that was put before the trial court by the pleas was whether or not the bank and the curves could be held appears as something other than it is when in fact of their rights are enhanced by the mask as opposed to b its true nature or that their transfer had to effect of taking equity piccy assets that may be reachable by one creditor it and moving those assets away right so the question i think still hangs on what it is that they have done here if in fact those assets would have been protected in the first instance so that's a basic question then you have the other questions i asked to what was the bank's intent what was the state of knowledge but with these questions we're getting back closer to factual matters as opposed to matters of law and i'm going to let them wait to see what  what what we get from the bank and we know that the bank used the equity in the chicago property to take a determination with regard to the loan to value basis for the low we knew that would also have to know that the florida property wasn't he intended to be an entirely homestead you know because otherwise what are they doing that's wrong you know i the issue here is whether or not very active with the carp's to try to impress the chicago property and maintain that property there with the entireties label which they have argued at the same time trying to suggest that they have moved this property to florida but it's not reachable by creditors i understand that there's that there's a there's an inconsistency in some respects with that notion but i don't think that the that the issue that you're suggesting is exclusive of an opportunity to determined that a fraudulent transfer occurred to determine that effort to defeat crime i'm finding just quite difficult i don't mind telling obvious i haven't bottom line but based on your contentions left to my own devices if if i had to resist if i have to interpret the cooked cooperative gesture what does it become a conspiracy and when does it become cooperation that mutes serves the mutual interest the book the banks and the cops because obviously if the bank is going  finance the slow down home i'm presumably this took place before the crash they would have looked at it with a as a as a golden opportunity well they use that go that potentially to to leverage ninety five percent of that two point three million dollar thank you very much i've got a few questions takes don't i don't get the notes to for you say no the question really becomes whether or not a mortgage defeats its n c i the entire debt really breaks it down to the most conveyance does not belong to me to be as large a factor as you might hope that that's because if you're lending your property as collateral how do you distinguish from the fact that you're lending in any facts the the proceeds of the acquisition to a borrower through a combat deaths well if you look at the law and that's the the troubling portion there is no one  why would there be a release of that mortgage you had about what was it over seven hundred eight hundred thousand dollars tied up in that mortgage right would you take it i one day and release of the knocks what were you what ghosts were you running from property of the bank then went to enforce to foreclose against the chicago property who would be senior who would be joining with using the premises ask collateral doesn't alter doesn't constitute a break up park advance or that let's put it this way the collateral is a shoe is not to be viewed as a  the florida property at that point wouldn't back create a scramble the seal gets there first i believe that because the nature of the tenancy by the entirety still remains and the nature of that that he had t very least that the markets just simply used as a way to longer the resource hours of its current status into a status that would be protected but yet retain the mask of being wanted to do was to pass on the resources of the chicago property to that particular friend to by pass the judgment and so you mortgage the property to this friend make the generalization let's take it is i am a homeowner i own my house intensify the entire i fall behind in my current mortgage or i just need to be his to a better rate and you throw all your closing costs into this mortgage so now you that's a question that backed up palettes counsel was honest enough not to undertake to answer that under illinois law all of the proceeds of the tenancy by the property defeats the pennsy by the entire day then you're not going to be able to use that to pay for college now that you're protected you're protected by virtue of having control of the presumed who decides what they're controlling for you that looking at a piece by piece basis started out becomes senior during the interval before the release only if this court sas that any mortgage especially this mortgage defeated the tense about  mortgage signed by mr and mrs carr both of whom waved their homes that right on the chicago problem it took the mortgage subject to the judgment late in this discussion it seems to reflect why the this mortgage was released in favor of some additional financing up jane in florida that i don't know whether it was paid off if the border property had been refinanced the facility would have been paid off and the security instruments released contrary to counsel's assertion here had the plaintiff's judgment  i understand i'm using you as a mic as a mechanical time to the extent that what i'm saying may contradict some things that maybe basically on the facts thing and the interpretation us counsel whether or not if there had been a default in our facility in our long and we foreclose whether we could foreclose the judge had counsel indicated no we all know the correct answer but the counsel indicated yes fact that the law has now been restored does not restore it because it becomes a new acquisition box support next to the price rights of the usurp any position it always had that position relative to this to the senior class when arlene is gone i forget just gone he's right back to where he was whether or the i ten c brian terry and you were carried along by their rights perhaps what counsel was thinking is that i put on a d fall under that obligation foreclosed because i had a mortgage there those are two separate animals for purposes of title insurance you can say you know what when i can argue here we're just going to agree here our mortgage because of it's collateral nature which isn't except the fact that we're going to take s entirety don't follow if they're if it's all to relieve the facts of this case were to demonstrate that the mortgage and the proceeds their mortgage were used solely for the benefit of one of the joint tenants but if they're taking if the  your judgment i don't see how there's any conspiracy in any way involved if the bank knows that if they foreclose on their mortgage and seek to take the property the chicago property yeah and take the value of that collateral for the benefit of their loan i can't proceed against that collateral i can't proceed in that action i don't have a they know the debts that the carp's have including jerome they know that the property is alleged to be entirely surprised when they know that they are taking a note from only one of the attorneys strengthen they're aware that that the hell company from the title company will not insure over the interest and therefore proceed for it we're talking about them doing things things that they couldn't  but i i think there's more serious question out he able to lead a conspiracy as far as the issue is one of them which is versus one of liability because if in fact the bank by simply that even though they're not doing themselves any good they were giving aid to the cops to maintain their protective position against you and where