clients unfortunately could not make the trip but they asked me to express their gratitude as they did not previously have a chance to discuss this matter in the appellate court and in addition i'd like to also welcome the two young men here that are this case and the three reasons why the first reason is that mr fertile the plaintiff below never prove the claim against my client's individual at trial the second reason is because of the d that the older master had sold the house the court did not address it in its memorandum order the fact that my clients were sued individually rather than their construction however that it is i'll be discussing  were not timely filed they did not include the vans address for service they not were not properly served on the them and ultimately this led to what is rather troubling that mr was not sent to the proper address my clients never received it they never had an opportunity to address the arguments made there and the court below did not have oral argument and the court issued opinion in the writ the first reason i'd like to discuss why the appellate ruling should be reversed is that mr fatah simply never prove the claim against my client's individual at trial there was no evidence offered that would allow anyone to what happened in the trial court how we got to this place the case was originally captured captioned in the name of the room been rooms individually correct yes it was and there was no issue about that that was raised in the truck that they were personally liable they were they were named individually they responded to the complaint and mr fatah took the case to trial at trial m testified that what he did was in his capacity as as president of master and away it went no one addressed the fact that will perhaps these aren't even the right event and as we hear but to tell us the course they were not then never received anything else in the appeal but unbeknownst to him mr fatah passed the deadline he was granted to follow the record on the very for days later filed a motion asking for leave to file the record in santa was not served on mr brown and when i say not serve i don't mean mr ben just didn't open his mail and did it i mean that it was the notice of filings specifically says it was sensitive wrong and what published in the past the appellate court has caught these types of things or we cited two cases for you in our review one of them is as recent as twenty thirteen and in those cases at the court found that well while we may have jurisdiction because procedural issues i mean obviously the reason we took the case is what you indicated earlier is that and why there are so many amateurs briefs is that it's an important issue and it's one that should be decided by this court and i think you would probably agree regardless of what happened below that the issue is squarely before us today is a right yes i would ok and it's somewhat problematic to rule on a procedural issue and then give an advisory opinion after that if we said there was improper service or whatever in vacating opinion based on that regard but we can deal with that later let me ask you about the implied warranty of have it habitability and it seems that our case law would indicate and i don't think you would deny that it's not only initial purchasers but subsequent purchasers of lease for a reasonable period of time it would apply to subsequent purchases as well would you agree with that proposition i would agree that what the  is what your honor is referring to is it said in that's for the scenes in the course language is very specific in these services of what's out there you did not have a waiver by the initial purchase what you had was the builder selling to purchaser but the and will get the waiver in a minute and the subsequent purchaser as well is it really up to the initial purchaser to be able to waive the subsequent purchasers implied warranty of habitability mean that subsequent purchaser doesn't know that it was waived going in is it is it the responsibility of the subsequent purchaser who would have that right even going with your argument barring a waiver to research and say of diligence that has to be required we already have subsequent purchasers doing i don't searches doing a home inspections mr petard did at least the home inspections case which is one of the facts at issue is so that the concern is person and that basis was we understand it's very difficult for homebuyers to discover whether there's a latent defect and that's that's a good policy on the other hand it's very easy for for example or you might get as what occurred in this case perhaps in addition to a lower price and express written work in exchange if you look at the warranty of language that the waiver language that's at issue in this case it's very specific it's pacifically says that what the reason is because the the warranty had already been waiting and mr photographer could have discovered very easily whether or not it had been sent to the words themselves the document the as this document itself that that's you're not at the end of the day are we really being asked to determine as a policy matter whether the burden should be upon subsequent purchasers to check the record or should be on the builder to record the waiver vyborg i don't think we are and i think if we we go down the road of requiring a builder to record the waiver then we open up a can of worms that is really going to be distasteful and have a lot of unintended  if we go down that road then we're going to erode the high standards of the court as our court and the lower courts have already created for these waivers in addition it would not help in this particular situation  because there is no reason why anyone like my clients or any other builder similar is situated would have thought that they needed to record this this document the existence of the ruins and in this body of  contractor between the two they are in a far better position to prevent the de facto from occurring in the first place so that the builder would have to record every waiver saying well that would be one possible one the waiver with the first purchase initial purchase or your position would still be one if if the subsequent purchaser is not bound by that waiver absolutely under the court's precedent i would i would argue that's the logic so it's of no consequence if they recorded or not exactly like just before you get started here i presume and in hearing your initial argument there's a portion of that says what is the builder actually getting if a subsequent purchase or if there's a waiver in the subsequent purchaser then invoke the implied warranty but he is getting something isn't it i mean he's if that initial purchaser never sells the house there is a waiver and i think we haven't focused enough on for a reasonable period of time if the purchaser keeps the house i'll throw out a number twenty years fifteen years ten years five years whatever it would be constitute as not being a reasonable period of time then builders getting something in that context to write because he doesn't know i mean he doesn't know how long we give the examples where a year later or six months later or two days later it sold him and he's not really getting the benefit of his bargain because he gave that initial purchase or something in exchange for the waiver but there's a chance he is going to get something as a result of that right i think that the builder using both of principles of property and contract law would expect that when he's getting a waiver he's getting a waiver that gives him some certainty so that he can move on with his business and build more houses and s houses and continue on and on what's happening and what i heard in councils argument is that well you might get a waiver rest as to the first house but it's it can be eliminated the very next day if a but if the facts prove out in each individual case they would have a defective product in one aspect or another and having to absorb a loss there or a purchaser five six years down the line now having to go in and spend thousands of dollars or whatever it is as a result of the builders the fact of work so there is a policy argument on the other side as well as an or there's an argument but i would point to two foster that now suddenly builders are going to have to price in this extended risk that they do not exist that is going to in turn increase the price of every new home constructed in illinois and it's going to price i believe the national association of hom builders figure was that that for every one thousand dollars increase in home construction costs it's going to price eighty five hundred illinois out of home ownership that's a that's a real problem and so if we're balancing that in duty they already do som all i'm suggesting is that they can simply ask was the warranty away if if they're told the incorrect answer if they're told the correct answer then they're fully informed if they're told the incorrect  across contract law across property law that's the case you can't transfer it to someone else something that you never  thank your honor for pointing out that if we are if the court rules that the subsequent purchaser in the warranty does is not a waiver is in effect of us of a subsequent purchase or the warranty disclaimers of the builders