verified complaint and have contended that verified response should have been made so i think apple the i do recognize that there are some cases that have indicated when there hearing on of the verified complaint and the non verified response was issues remain and yet most of the cases that i've read rely upon it this mcquire to be verified and that's the end the record and that the proceedings of the foreclosure action represent affirmatively tells the dismissal of this complaint the affirmative action they're talking about is another lawsuit an earlier that took place in which they were not a party it was a case in which my class was a party and which was resolved should settle for visions of cases and it's not about that in toto because our claim for the rent is not just for that time for our claim for that reason is beyond that and one of the exhibits to live counsel has submitted is what that have not been resolved and that the dispute is not prejudiced by this letter but the payment of rent as reference so the disputes yes of the prior round for the not payment of rent relate to certain amounts and there is correspondence in here the particular exhibit i don't recall where they were given some time to do some repair on the building and then they had to come back and begin payments so how much of that time should be a credit never do this again we don't have that we only have the power of all records and i swear to god i'll never permit this to happen again and i'm looking back with you in about a month or two where a judge forced me to do and i hope i have the same panels and considerably did that happen in any event that's our position relative to i think your question and how it's  when they filed their responses to our complaint nor did they waive it as they were coming forward with the other pleadings for which stands out that my view on that is case case remains and should be sent back well you kind people the trial court to be decided so that's one of the principle is that him before you and again like i say response with you only to use the documents that they filed in support of their motion against us and that motion against us all of the support for that motion is from the case that was previously heard in which they were not involved and which was settled at the end there are no propositions within the settlement that this person did appear in them not certified to take their position to say this is all over those whose exhibits when you review them as i summarize them i believe in someone don't go to the issues we're talking about here they were expected from the record in the other lawsuit in a manner that was in their thought in support of their position but they were doing so in a manner that did not about certification or not relate to anything what we're talking about and that's why without believing anymore i went through some of these things where order possession nothing i believe was traced to the counter to our position so without belaboring the sayings which i would tend to do over and over again reference to those exhibits reference to those exhibits for which no you want to explain why they didn't charge any part of the record mr morel on behalf of his client identified there were several deficiencies outpacing handled itself as a receiver i think again i go back to that that resulted from the bank not being ready to manage court reporter present as the poet he is responsible for providing a complete record of appeal to this court and we can only work with what is actually in the record now i mention that none of those issues were failed to make rental payments and they have generated fees during this time period which they haven't paid so i think that addresses the question you have relative to whether or made it apparent to them what we want