highest court of this thing which isn't that a supreme court in the parent case which is six weeks old which was also my case your honors should be binding and my problem with the regards to general principles of law including real property the court in shadow would did state that the recycles in the deed position before this court right to believe that the nevada supreme court got it wrong was well they didn't file a number of the principles of law and equity in the diamond spur case they mention that the usual was raised regarding the good they believe of the party rejecting the payment and the nevada supreme court notes that it wasn't raised factual if there is a good faith belief even of that belief is wrong and another cases if you make a conditional accepting this and you can ask for anything further that is a conditional tender which is not  so he didn't cite those authorities to this court also point out the art in mclaren that cites a diamond store was victor based on this part where he said it was actually p y operate and so therefore any tender does not have to be recorded respectfully a tender or unattended tender needs to be recorded and the restatement under section six point four knows it's not good enough to have article discharged if you don't have something of a look right there that rd parties know there's a dispute over this link one of the things i've argued about from the beginning in many of these cases and i've handled a number of these appeals is that at the time to record a one page document with the kind of recorder only costs seventeen dollars event the time they sent a letter to  and this and hundreds of other cases a before that just records in the vatican and this court they just recorded a notice litigation would be much different here when the failed to do that the shadow would case does acknowledge that the court has to be evaluate all of the factors in determining if the relief i do believe mclaren would have been statute which changes common law lien priorities i mean kamel of going back to england the law was unclear at the time the parties  dollars well below market value many of the purchasers at these sales even where the deeds of trust are said to have stand up didn't lose or didn't lose a lot of money on these cases so balancing only equities i think was be the way to go with the mclaren case the nevada supreme court did not do that i understand again that this court is bound by the holdings of mclaren the court uphold it and make your own decision like i said based upon just the equities of course and certainly your discretion as to how you will determine this but i really have nothing much more to saying i will i appreciate mr bones arguments frankly they're wrong it is contested in this case that there was a tender of the super priority prior to the sale it's uncontested that amount was sufficient to cure the super priority prior to the sale and because that tender was made already to the trust was preserved there's no equity to balance here a that there is no requirement to record the tender and while i appreciate mr bones are the modes about what we could assure what is done you know if you want to balance the equities the banks thought that hey we don't have to pay it because the age always say there's no super priority in so after the bank forecloses well do we get to rely on that and balance the act what is that the bank but we knew that the supreme court said no court have any particular questions for base counsel regarding this issue apparently not so i i know i have lots of time  but really given the clarity decision i don't know how much more there could be to argue regarding his bones argument regarding balancing the equities you never get so balancing of equities because that one that tender is the way to that super priority only it is as good as paid so there is no further just scotians to be had as to whether it's more equitable to allow the baby to preserve it lean or allow somebody who bought the property for a th of its value to cry foul that now they don't get the benefit of massive windfall because we didn't spend seventeen dollars to record a notice that we are not required to notice so in this particular case i would ask the court to hold the decision made by the district court that the tender was valid preserve the deed of trust and that it spawns wyatt's of the property subject to our