point that we're talking about there isn't a mistake he definitely explains what he intended to say that he found out one of her boats to be the center street if you look at the judge's ruling the judge in his will he contradicts the evidence which he considers to be the strongest the the evidence of the defendant and her documentary evidence and considering the totality of this ruling that mainstreet as her abode is against the manifest weight of the evidence of the very evidence that he found to be the most conclusive the testimony of the defendant as to where she resided and also her documentary evidence in this case the judge says that the evidence supports center his decided against the manifest way to the evidence but we also have the issues of the credibility of the witnesses which the judge decided in this case the judge decided that the defendant was the most credible witness testifying in the case and then he went on to comment about the quality in the legitimacy of her of her evidence the legal standard in determining the usual place of abode is a standard of where you have continuous intimate that certainly is that is a different standard and it's a it's a it's a lesser standard than than what what god actually shows of what's one's usual place of abo so if the judge finds that she is the most credible witness he finds that or evidence is the most credible the documentary evidence is credible how does she lose she loses because he ruled against the manifest weight of the evidence and also because you applied the wrong legal standard where can you be found when he improperly defines the usual place of abode where you can be found in the most general terms the judge said he was speaking purely off and so he's using a lesser standard as he's considering in determining where her usual place of abode is again saying that it's where you can be found a place where you merely can be  is nothing is not the proper standard and when you look at what was proven in this case the credible evidence that the judge indicates the defendant showed it's where did she shower were did she sleep where did she keep her personal items such as her make up woodard public documents contain as being her usual place of abode where did she treat the place where she residing at being her home where was she doing and where did she but the judge stated that he viewed the landlord's testimony with question he wasn't placing much credibility on the landlord because i think the letter was severely impeached up in respect to his observations as to whether or not she was at the main street address as far as the evidence that the judge to respond we said supported center street is being her usual place of abode with such things as her checks her driver's license her voters tired of these were things that she had kept for years and they they continuously said that center street was her usual place  very public documents the rental agreement that the plaintiff stresses should be given attention or should be given more weight is really kind of a red herring because and the judge acknowledge she paid the rent she paid the rental of child support and the court acknowledged that and the the judge says except of the defendant's testimony that she did not live at main street even though she was paying rent for her children to stay there inside the lease he understood why she did it and the judge against that he found her to be credible the judge finding her to be credible and then ruling against her he dismisses all of the evidence that she established what she found  credible such as her testimony that she resided at century her testimony that she never lived at main street she never slept at main street her personal belongings  in her meals at center street center street is where she called her home in addition she also submitted documents such as an order of protection that she went to court and got a few days before mother passed away in she listed not not center street as excuse me not main street as redress she went to court and got the sort of protection and publicly stated mainstreet is not my address also her mother's death certificate indicated that main street was not her address the defendant presented a lot of evidence showing that center street was her usual place  there's no evidence that this woman ever slept at the main street address in all the cases that seem to deal with this issue the person when you're looking at what is their usual place of abode they sleep there in this case there's no sleeping there she is there her children are there and in no one's denying that she had transients contacts with mainstream but at the same time it didn't rise of the level of her usual place of a book now the judge looked at this as a place where you regularly but that doesn't make it your residence she wasn't sleeping there is no evidence that she the sleeping there was in a better position to tell the court to testify what's your usual place of abode the defendant and if you believe the defend and you find the defendant credible it's pretty hard to really get to the final if you're going to rule against the manifest with the evidence and then you take that testimony which indicates credible and then you look at the documentary evidence of sumit which you find as being very convincing how do you rule against the defendant who stablish that also though we also got it's of additional evidence we brought in her father who also lived with her at the center street ruth sylvia johns she first and she's got really intimate knowledge of what's going on inside her boyfriend's house which happens to be the finest others she says he is she's she's not sleeping there excuse me she's sleeping there she's got sleeping at main street her personal the defendant sleep there is she resigned there no she does so we've got people present at both homes that can testify center street the girl for the father that this is where she resigns this is really found out what a rationale they came up with this the why they chose main street over century but we do know that they tried to serve her at what they thought was her place of employment and on the night that they attempted to serve her there they were told she doesn't work here she works at a place in the order they were trying to serve or in the cell and then after that the processor then went to the main street residence and tried the a substitute service at the at the main street residence but and nationally they tried to serve her personally at the at the wall place of employment in the court ruled against the manifest weight of the evidence the court ruled against the very evidence of phone credible being the testimony of the defend it as well as the documentary testimony that was that was offered at the court also found to be very credible i just would like to briefly also address the other issue that's that's present in the case they are to issue a summons to each defendant in this case being the defendant individually which which was issued but then also to the defendant as executor of the estate of her mother and the or something and in supreme court rule for interaction to look at the caption and in looking at the caption they talk about how you can cure the problem in our supreme court rule want to one there's no directive to the defendant to look at the  look at who's name but there's no direct to look above and so in this case of wessel's the parties the defendants had appeared the case altered a participated in the case then there was a substitution of executor and after circumstances in certain circumstances and the circumstances and wessels yes they they are any good it was feared but there are circumstances and it doesn't say that that you're always going to cure it by by looking at the other parts of the some of  agree on what the record says we don't agree on the credibility of the witnesses and initially i didn't i wasn't sure that we didn't even agree on the standard of review because in his brief he says it's  review today's are going memphis where the evidence actually i think when the court makes a determination of fact and when you decide is this someone's abode that's a determination of fact you have to  credibility in in those situations i think that the smith v air room case controls it's actually a denial of a motion of vacate a default judgment and that's going to be set aside only where there's an abuse of discretion so i would say that that standard in the judge didn't have to make assessments of facts and make findings of fact and he had to make credibility issues and contrary to what counsel says on the record if you look at the report not credible so that was his assessment of their witnesses so i think what the score has to decide is the judge held abuses discretion in finding that the defendant failed to meet her burden it was her  work the reality is she had custody of her children and her children live and that main street address when she moved to main street she met with the land more with her estranged husband ex husband and all the children and she told him yeah we're all moving in together she signed a lease she paid the rent on the main street proper she became the executor of her mother's estate she found court documents as to where she should receive notice of the issues in the probate guess which uses her bail and address their the main street address  when she moved from main street in feb of twenty alive she went to the us postal service and fill out a change of address forwarding her mail from main street to a new address the landlord testified in this case that over the course of the period of time that they were there he visited those premises at least twenty times for repairs and other reasons every time he was there she was there her stuff was there he said and personally served her there but that's a different standard than it is but my point is that that's where they found that's where she was at the time they were looking to serve or she was on main street and she happened to answer the door and she got at my brief on page eighteen of the abstract you're going to see seventy seven thousand reasons why there's motivation to undo the fall of judgment which best final in my clients that realistic which serves so the court finds it is her ball of service in the center there is that place where she's reasonably likely to be provided notice that's that's the s and it's also significant that in this case plaintiff's former counsel is stable it was written into the record without objection and plains force former counsel sat i had conversations with her on the phone before the work on establishing more than one place of abode and why would you want to do that wiping for some reasons there are some advantages to it how about so and income tax time you may want to pick a location where you can establish your status as head of household for instance or how about if your fine for student loans she's hewas going to school at this particular time whether you're eligible for loans or not depends on whether you're living with somebody else  the complaint lists her as an executor list or individual in the complaint it's a pass there are separate comes of action each has a different cause of action in it some are against her individual and some are against her dad as the executor and there's a long line of cases and i've cited them in my brief sideway chester public taxi charter bay they all hold the technical irregularities do not render service  proper and those involved in correct names misspelled names incorrectly pass it iis and i would submit that that was all cases of fact on point there the summaries didn't disclose the dual capacities but the compl did the court said that the information in the complaint would cure any defect so the standard of finding a proper service that's against the contrary is the credible and also her documentary evidence was credible i think where the case goes awry is where the the judge comes up with a different standard where you can be found and we're not denying that she had these contacts with main stre but they didn't rise to the level of usual place of a book and as far as him talking about you know tax time when you want to be head of household and and you want to go get loans and you've done do all these things you make up to be this really bad person there's no evidence of after the service after the case we find out all these reasons as far as the testimony wasn't that she met she when she accompanied her ex husband with a letter of ex husband to the talking she was there but the judge that he you know i feel comfortable with what she did about running this place and paying the rent and signed the lease for the guy couldn't get a lease and she worked nights and the kids stay with her husband and they got along that's when back they got along and she would go there regularly the see your kids there's nothing wrong with that been existing over a long period of time you don't have a driver's license for ten years and you're trying because you're trying to create some kind of conspiracy that you're now you're going to have centers few but then somewhere down the road you're going to say that you're using mainstream and she kept her driver's license centers same what is her residence and she used center street she didn't use main street the change of address at the post office that she later made there she was changing a mailing address that she was using for state purposes back to her address the center shri there was some confusion about getting a mail and happened to beat that her father's place where she lived on center street was just a couple of places away couple of doors away from where them in the chronology here tell me exactly what i i believe it was them it was some time ago i mean it was before we ever went to court on the matter before we had hearings on the matter i mean she in the probate file when are there was an issue the the talk about her being served another time here at the main street the plaintiff attempted even though the defendant was named as the executor mother trying to do in getting my sister appointed as the executor administrator of the estate when my mother says well says i don't need executor or the administrator of the estate she missed the conversation with them you say not about not