council on please come up and address yourself and introduce yoursel amplifying the only recourse some of the people in back if you cannot hear what you're saying unless you speak up thank you very much you can start to  brought more than thirty days after the order has federal service a process he would inform the corporation other that was the process there is an affidavit prepared by david weighing in which he stated that that never occurred really do you have any cases that would support the notion that i think you're floating here they have custom and practice evidence like they have that you know if i knew this is what i would ordinarily do that that would be enough to give you grounds to have this taking you and i don't recall a case off the top of my head because your  there was no evidence presented at the closing of the sale that would indicate that he had knowledge of the lawsuit because the sale contract also included include anything and with nothing stated it was free and clear from a need that which was the language included in the sales contract between a and a one foods was filed on january eleventh two thousand that there was a citation proceeding files and attorney and had done some investigation with regards to the underlying action about his appearance i made twenty twenty any questions of them an opportunity was not presented in which i thought they could be addressed because that the matters that were just at the hearing were restricted to and limited to the document's of the motion to vacate the default and that information was i'm getting there your honor that information was not known to for evergreen because in january on january fifteenth two thousand and thirteen for evergreen to change its registered agents what no obligation as an attorney to do anything about it having just represented him have been involved in the change of  if there is no proper service there is no proper personal term stiction or over the party the child court to not allow for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of service instead of just consider would be proper service under the girls even even assuming they mustn't default if it was provided there was documentation not provided to the defendants and instead was just provided to the in the transaction however the affidavit says service on phillip trial registered agent asian male ten twenty nine twelve at four thirty two office the case law says that this affidavit of service from the ship is prime official evidence of proper service and order oh come that is the paul bush where kay says you need clear and convincing evidence to overcome service that appears in the record at c three sixty four and also the trial court said the book you know one i hearing this is an embarrassing argument not worthy of the court's trust r or c zero zero three six five   service was proper and mr chow he was the attorney representing the company in this particular transaction that's the subject of this appeal i don't think you'll find any disagreement up here on that so all the move on on a fo underlying complaint is deficient under i guess two six fifteen however the case law says that on a fortune one motion you can't go back and challenge the sufficiency of the complaint there's a case on that that is the universal considered by the court that was not one that the court had focused on with regards to service for bickering we had talked a lot about the initial service  sorry thirty day delay between when the when there was a change of registered agent and when the motion for t fault was filed in addition i'm addressing another argument that have been raised by pla about any eyes that might pass over to be if then we fail to live an affidavit i thank you for showing up and you know call answering the call of duty here but i just don't think there's any single basis for