it is not the actual prejudice they looked and said that we look at it as a high priority of ours states is trying to be you know respect our chain of title if you can't do that then no i don't never reform it i could never reform no no no you know the reformation and was a mutual a state a unilateral state of course they could reform but they did under my dear me if i forgive me for interrupting but i there's two points i want to give you a chance to respond to and ask opposing counsel respond as well because i the the purpose of the chain of title is not for even for those two parties who clearly know what was going on but has to put the world on notice that the d chain of title that's the st and and the nd point it seems to me is that this record is unique  in in demonstrating that gold strike one had lost its corporate status and that rather than paying its backpacked this is tied to for old straight to so the question i got for both of you is both of those seem to me as a former state court judge as things that a state court might take strong exception to not allowing people to do an end run around the formalities of the chain of title for purposes of maintain that integrity the public reporting system and also not allowing folks who have allowed their well basically not pay their taxes to just do an end run around that process and form a new corporation so now a federal judge and a little concerned about a federal court standing with a seal of oh no i don't think you're one bit confused and if there's nothing for them wondering how to tell would you like to reserve your time per bottle yes let's hear from opposing counsel plays thank you may please the court my litigation had they just started over and added we're homeowners to the to the notices but it's not require the name of the beneficiary is not even required by statute as long as the name of the those interests used in there which it was for my  or her interest in the property you know that they can build it because the home was omitted from the know is that prevented them from taking actions to prevent their property and there's no such showing here in fact they can see that the only prevents the property owner from taking steps to you know to repay the debt to get in contact with whoever you know you know any foreclosing on them they have indian village has those opportunities  in this fashion and they chose to rely on the fact that they believe that well they didn't believe the koran they didn't really believe that you know another enemy was for closing they face off at the use of the wrong name on it with boy the foreclosure and that was that of that document to reflect the true understanding of art and one other thing mr bruno mention made a brief mention to the the strict compliance standards involving the data thoroughly and in that case there's no question the record title was the beneficiary was the foreclosing entity and that the only question was some trust it didn't buy mutual state so we just think that there's no mutual findings of the court credibility which didn't matter because the three findings were one was it print where we prejudiced we never said we were prejudiced to was very noticeable siegal problem he never said it was t basically we believe that the problem as it were looking and saying absolute prejudice should or should be and each one of these actual prejudice is going to