molina first learned that he would lose his home when he received an altered order of possession from the sheriff's department giving him only forty eight hours to move when he received this notice his first indication he could lose his home and front properties as a purchaser with a duty to inspect records or to purchase from notice of his illinois clearly promulgated the responsibility by foreclosing mortgagee to use due diligence and honest effort to ascertain those with an interest in poor closure proceedings chase banks fundamental failure to do so is the law and due process that led to mr molina not receiving notice of the foreclosure proceedings chase have put home front property on notice to inquire further into any potential property injury mr molina would respectfully request that this court find the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over bind as a matter of additionally i'm like mr molina sanders the intervenor in that case was never in possession of the house he obtained his interest after the mortgage had and tradin to and  i will be handling the matters addressing for you the matters involving title that is the raines who represents home front will be addressing the matters involving possession that is his client's right to take possession of the property so that's how we're dividing our time i will address the motion to say callahan case mr remes would rest any issues you have with respect to the discovery issues that came up as part of the appeal  because the statute provides that the foreclosure statute provides that only the mortgage or or any other person who was applicator to make payment on the debt is a necessary part of this situation arises all the time the people who are in possession of properties or not may parties to the case it happens in foreclosures on apartment buildings for example where there's no intent to remove the tenant because when the lender takes ownership of the property it wants t tenants in place to pay rent ok he was not an owner that's what the record discloses so will you want to know absolutely that the will the the statute let me get the right statutory reference for you because there's a case that cited by the steward in her opening grief a supreme court case called ekman vs gen koski for all seven illinois two six three she didn't say just for the first but this principle when you read case what it says the five zero three pratt she was not mean party to the case but who was made a party to the case miss kyra i fear oh why because the special representative who was appointed after mr smith died filed a report and the but that's why they were never named they're not necessary part he died or if mr smith died or if mr smith transferred the property to somebody else if mr smith to transfer the property why did he put it in his will three years later to transfer ownership property it's just fifteen thousand dollars back if mr smith transferred the property why three years later did he put it in his will he didn't know any more according to what you tell me the first one sack fact of the matter was mr move ina unsophisticated up blaming him he didn't take any ownership interest in that property he might have had the right to possess it so with directing through with just a silver suit said i believe he had a license to live there until he died it to mr mckay t they just think it's another property that was what that was the trial judge just point  found out at that point that there were two houses so he took the writ to the sheriff's office and said you know there are two residence is on this property and the sheriff's office told him well we can only  on his bona fide purchaser status he didn't know who our city he didn't know that there were a few parcels or two residences on the parcel when he purchased the time don't determine when a bona fide purchaser is bonafide or not is when the certificate of sale is produced that was november second twenty fifteen at the top contemporaneous with his payment of the money at the foreclosure entire personal which was commonly known according to the secular county recorder deeds as five of the three they don't have a five zero one on record at the st clair county record beach you search that address you're going to come up if there had been record notice as mr claims the will gave record notice the problem is a couple things it says it purports to give five or one south vine to molina so if i'm looking to purchase bible three south vine i see it will that's been filed with secular county circuit who are the says five old one is transferred i don't have any idea to know a reason to know that that's going to impact  no evidence of where bible once albine it is located in the i don't know the answer to it because there's there's never been anything recorded that's the problem that's why we have recordings and in the convey in fact but if if you do that and you don't record it and somebody else comes in and puts a lien on the property for example if you don't record it will there liens ahead of your deed if you decide to record it later for one i mean you when you say you might come to the property with i mean physically come to the property well i guess if you tell them that yes i only asked then yes they would know something but if of somebody were to just drive by the property what is to let them know that you have an ownership three is the property is the subject of the foreclosure it's what was listed in the publication notice that's where if someone was there yes inquire of them that's the property that is listed for sale so you're saying that that's right  person might not have any awareness that there is that other house on the thing that they are correct it's not like you risk and labor if you look at the class yes but if you just look at the the notice you're not going the reason why i don't believe my point did i don't i can't affirmatively attest to keep the fact that he did or not when i agree with counsel and that necessary parties are parties to him however by not naming other parties they do so at their own per i'm the case in illinois supreme court cases said that the illinois mortgage foreclosure law states that disposition of mortgage real estate is subject to the interest of all persons not made a party so if an interest is not foreclo it survives the foreclosed mortgage my opinion it is that there was no personal jurisdiction attained over a person holding an interest in the property and so any foreclosures any judgments any orders