provision apply and apply in the midst of pending litigation to determine the deed of trust delivery and it can apply because it's preempted by a federal friends at the bar offer three responses none of which has merit they argue that glass doesn't apply because the notice of default here is purportedly not the instrument that made the day holy to holy do being t is critical when we look at last the rd step is after the notice of default as a matter of the valve off a period of time in which the borrower can reinstate so we can make a partial payment not a full payment and get back to a good in the future it would have to record a new notice of default and the borrower would have an additional thirty five days to cure so all three steps have to happen a rescission of steps to mean the no rescission doesn't say in high school not only do we rescind the necessary prerequisite to acceleration but we also accelerate that would be done because if you pull the rug out from under the acceleration six years ago right when nevada started allowing citation of on public authority a very recent survey if a unanimous decision is a unanimous panel decision but more than that if it isn't it's a decision that was petitioned for profound but ten years longer than six period so there is no express preemption and they don't even ever answer that now with respect to glass i want to highlight the fact that the way the issue was framed for the glass court was very different frame tear and how the district court analyzed it yes they were dealing with the same documents and largely the same language but glass framed the issue as if it required a clear and unequivocal statement about deceleration essentially glass was arguing that or even more than just cancelling the notice of default the issue here is different that's not how we're framing the issue the issue that we're framing it what the district court properly found is that the bank intended to limit its rescission and if you look at the excerpts a record one hundred and sixty six dollars they specifically say however that this rescission shall be deemed to be only an election without prejudice not to cause jail so the district court properly gave intent to the words of bank of america that they put in that notice and what we have to understand when the issue wasn't framed that way for the class court the natural consequence of class is that they're  sentially saying a party is not able to exercise its contractual remedies that it's not able to decide which primaries it wants to choose and cancel and which remy's it wants to preserve that's essentially what they're arguing that's why class is not instructive here and it doesn't surprise me that the class chorus missed this overarching problem because that's not how the issue was framed by the glass parties also challenged by the class decision is that they another remedy and they exercised both remedies and only cancelled the other option to go to sale your honour's if you're out if you're if you're even questioning whether that how the district or how the system as a supreme court would look at this there is a case before the best of greenport currently pending address when a bank puts limiting language in their documents i am confident that the supreme court did not even consider the fact that they were essentially saying we're not going to allow you to cancel some rights and preserve other r remedy i also want to highlight that paragraph eighteen of the deed of trust provides for expel aeration without notice there's no requirement that they even have to give notice if the borrower transfers the property without permission of the bank so there's multiple reasons why a bank would accelerate and not need to be limited to news of default as a final matter your honor i do want to so we would ask if you are at all wondering what the supreme court would do is just with this specific argument as it's framed in this case to stay and wait for the s a far versus us bank case because these implications that i'm raising here today are raised in that brief and was particularly raised is that somehow the bank can make statements to the world and to really the borrower and there's problems with even federal law of dodd frank in making certain representations and making intentional language and then saying well i didn't mean what i said it has far reaching consequences that the last parties did not even reach because that's not how they frame the issue and while it is true that s a far did try to file an amicus brief to reframe the issue it was at the end of the process and not surprisingly the court declined to grant rehearing and consider a new argument raised by leaking as a final with my final two and it really cuts against the pro max position the pro max decision made it very clear that one of six twenty is a clear and unambiguous statute that requires no further interpretation let alone is a permissible and yet that's what they are same kind of aversion as you did and said no this can't possibly apply it's only intended to apply to bona fide purchasers and then of a supreme court said no no we don't get to read intent behind this the bottom line is bank of america triggered this statute in two thousand and eight when it made the loan wholly due and then for the next ten years it had ten years and it didn't do anything to either do you celebrate or for  work she says it's not a shorter time period well yes it is we get six years we don't get the balance of the ten years that she says was left which is shorter than six years from the time the plane approved she reference