that if the bank is a bona fide organ g and has no knowledge of any impropriety or anything that's wrong to the letter of direction no they can rely on that but in this case  she was pressed on that she said oh maybe maybe that didn't happen that summary judgment is so that's what she said in her she didn't sign these documents knew nothing about this transaction now the the court only been granted partial summary judgment in this issue a forgery  one point something to the effect it assumed that your client is truthful and in fact she didn't sign it and it's a forgery the court asked the court also  yes or no did you yes and it's supposed to be done in front of a bank officer who signed it did this or that is it possible to sign in front of a bank officer and not have a of the united states and therefore she probably didn't sign in front of the officer she did not sign for the u s so if she says she didn't sign it and she couldn't have signed it in front of the officer because she didn't sign it then wouldn't  officer be incorrect when the officer said she signed it in front of me incorrect or not telling the truth both either one i mean it doesn't make too much difference does it if in fact the law is or the person who's supposed stranger to the transaction that's what we were that was the issue to be tried but when before we actually begin testimony the court said i'm going to weather this forgery issue come in and see where she also plays up s forgery that the signatures of dr suite were fast off and so i think this is the is that really appropriate for the court to make a finding and to say if i were to look at testimony was on the boat and therefore the court was obligated to accept it well you know that's not right i mean if if if a witness testifies that the weather in chicago great in the winter time record doesn't have to accept that the court you know standpoint after trial after that i just needed the opportunity to prevent it present any evidence that he was she wanted including actually birch which she did not bring into court that there was no forgery and so therefore all the issues that are going to talk about from here forward are short of irrelevant because if there is no forgery there's nothing really for the court else there's nothing else for the court to determine what about the deficiency well might my argument  judgment is this you know we presented our motion for order to reset overhead deficiency judgments in there against all of the borrowers including dr suess we included in that motion a copy of the proposed order that was to be presented to court the defendant did not file a written response challenging the proposed order of the motion did not show up in court to argue against it did not file a motion to reconsider after the order was believe that the fact that there was a trial regarding whether or not she was a stranger result in the summer job by weight of a theory on the merits where evidence entry was proper as well because there was no credibility waiting involved i think it counsel sort of way out of the wall correctly that own bank is entitle to rely on the way in trustee signature on a mortgage so long as the baby was not involved in the forgery or had actual knowledge of their forgery because the crime the mortgage contract is between the way in trustee and the bank so long as we were not involved in the me that's my practice do i have specific recollection of what happened nine years seven or eight years ago no but this is my practice this is what i remember dr sweeney testified i don't have any idea what happened  an acknowledgment that the way in trust that the beneficiary of the way trust is directing the way trust to do something in the bank is consent think of that as the mortgages is there a requirement that those signatures ha decided testify that that's her practice they have a sign in front of them but that's not a requirement so my point is there seems to be no way that the defendant presented that evidence that we knew of a forgery defect that this won't documentation was not perfect and that there were a few more general things that may have happened to this transaction that does not give rise to the defendant there were something that would suggest that we knew that this woman did not sign the document i mean i strongly think of examples but for i suppose of the signature while being different than when the way a trustee who's the really the most responsible party here if there is a forger if if the when will you trust me signed a mortgage in two thousand and six the very first time they sent your bill forth that's al region two thousand and six he claims she didn't authorize anybody to sign a mortgage on her behalf in two thousand and six if the if the bill said and you're supposed to get the money there would be even more reason for pick up the  but she should inquired anyway because she didn't she claims authorize the wish trustee decide anything in two thousand and six and she got a bill after bill after bill every time they cited a mortgage extension every time they saw a change time this happened right when it happened and she didn't and i also point i would like to analogize to a concept of the motion the instruments we all know from forgeries that the effort after the forgery goes through the chain of banking the for the person liable for before he always comes back to the party dead except in the forged documents and in this case that was the only trustee we don't know we have no way of going to be frame the interactions between the way interest the and the is a little bit unusual respectfully your ok i don't i don't believe that's what the documents says it does it's not a certification from the bank officer it just says acknowledge i gree you can dance around it nonetheless your agent think i disagree with you respectfully that it is a certification a verification that the signature is accurate i don't believe that's what a baby does in the way of trust situation and i don't believe that's what happened well why them wouldn't it be possibly because if the loan document was signed in front of them and they knew the person then the probability that it was a forgery was you know where it was if the the document wasn't signed in front of them they wouldn't know unless someone like it was missing appeared in front of them handed down the darkening semi scientists outside your president's presence but this is my signature again so is it the as your question is yes what you just described would prevent a forgery from ever happening but i don't believe it's required to go through that well has the law changed while the last room hasn't changed  front of a wall off so that's not the wall as a document to be valid has to be actually signed by the party to be charged yes of course and if it's not then i think it's called forgery yes but but i don't think that again there's no requirement that the bank officer know there is no requirement but the point is that i just played for a trust there for a program and i had to appear in front of homeland security and the reason why don't move this court has the power to just say that there was a big if if that was just air that testimony was under but if there was no positive testimony to contradict it and it was not it's not inherently improbable i find