ability thank you veronica please the court counsel in the new york guardian case the fourth district of this court some time ago suggested the due process forbids terminating a recorded property interest without attempted notice of any kind in a text proceeding because that constitutes a constitutional violation that is a jurisdictional defect in the judgment in conformity with the standard the supreme court laid down in mennonite no other cases it was readily ascertainable from the public record and it was terminated without any attempted notice of any kind in checkmates text the proceeding oh yes the court is aware from the briefing checkmate identified and told the court it has identified only one interest based on a private title company tracked search that it deliberately kept that information from the court because the p m g deed showed on its face that of the two separately tax index numbered parcels which are involved in this case the old one parcel which belonged to divonne and the old two parcel which was actually the subject of the p m g deed it showed on its face that only the owe it to parcel was involved in that deed and therefore the tax buyer would have known instantly that it had not identified any the court we argued the constitutional violation of constitutional due process as a matter that would write the judgment and we also argued under state law grounds of what i would call special of constitutional due process is a part of the fundamental subject matter jurisdiction of the court we cited a number of cases but i we specifically identified that the trial court we believe committed in that the trial court erroneously believed that the distinction between in personal moment in ram jurisdiction still controls constitutional due process analysis one of the reasons the trial judge articulated as a basis for denying the due process argument was that illinois tax state proceedings are based on when jurisdiction that's acquired when the collector makes the original lane vs and over continuing in the mennonite case that for constitutional due process analysis there is no longer any juror any distinction that can be maintaining between in ram and in persona j supreme court has recognized that holding as well in exactly as explicit terms as i just said it in the rosewell versus chicago time i don't trust case that's the rosewater case that appears at ninety nine purposes the distinction is still valid the states are free under the federal constitution to maintain a distinction between proceedings that are founded on in ram versus in persona jurisdiction they don't have to standards of the minimal requirements of notice one of the things i put stressed in the same tired argument is that what we're talking about here is a violation of the bare minimum requirements of constitutional time immemorial even before morning versus hanover before shaffner versus our hytner that are a violation of in persona jurisdiction that violated due process voided the proceedings entirely what the and what does that mean why i think the trial i think the court was perhaps confused in its phrase ology and saying that because person all in persona non reading jurisdiction if that's what the court meant by that phrase is a contradiction in term the proceeding is purely against the land of but then the in the text proceeding which is supplemental to the collector's application our courts have held that in ram jurisdiction continues  in those u s supreme court cases that produced different due process standards then would have applied in an in persona jurisdiction case where the court must acquire jurisdiction of the parties by service of individual summons on the individual and of of but the supreme court has literally i believe that is the illinois supreme court's phrase in the rosewell case up biologist that distinction for purposes of constitutional due process analysis as to whether a party in interest and in this case mennonite teaches us that that conclusively means a party with a recorded interest in the land records i the constitutional due process principle separately alternatively we argue that under twenty to forty five subsection four of that the statutory notice requirements were violated now supreme court that i have said contrary to the earlier law but it is that was that a an attack on a void judgment was wholly outside to fourteen one it was based on the court's inherent authority to set aside a void judgment at any time there is a line of cases though that has stemmed from the on i supreme court's decision i think somewhere and i want to say in the mid one nine hundred ninety s are early two thousand in which the don't have it from memory and it would be happy to look it up and provide a letter after the argument with that one citation but i think procedurally we proceeded for that reason under two fourteen zero one four the combined arguments under f contending that the judgment was void of an issue though for violation of constitutional due process and that that in effect trumped any argument that could be made under two appellate court in teachers insurance said clearly that if there is a constitutional violation in the case of the supreme court rule then three of five j cannot be applied because the effect of protecting would it described lot six in the legal description of the refers to the legal description of lot six which includes parcels old one and  that's not the terminal tail of the outcome of this case the prior tax the proceeding was supposed to cover one of the parcels the deed issued out of it covered both of them that's what the now  in this land did you do then the question is who has to duty to check the public records two fourteen zero one he specifically  of the trial court proceeding shows that checkmate so i have submitted an affidavit to the court indicating that the public records have been checked indicating that all notices  in this case that the court does have jurisdiction over the property wow how big the court it would be illinois law says that when you have but a tax statutes which says here's the proper procedure you follow in order to can convey the title to complete the taxi proceeding you should give this notice you should give that notice if you don't give those violation of due process because i'm what you have here is you really get it arse our legislature into fourteen zero one eight when it says that unless lack of  that's where we get into the constitutional arguments to process arguments but maybe that and then i think that's where i see the problem this case is i'm not sure we're understand how in the scheme of the statutes that we're looking at the rights of the jurisdiction over the person in order to for example take their property away from them right so is it true or not that the court needed a person in to sign jurisdiction over divine bank in order to take its profit if it didn't have jurisdiction over defined bank and it took its property away from it that it the court's decision could be avoidable but it would not be for it because the court had jurisdiction over the real property there's a distinction between of jurisdiction appears affirmatively from the record a proper the b f p's rights trump the rights of somebody like defines and by using that appear of the record proper the legislature obviously considered a situation where there would be lack of jurisdiction and it would not appear on the record proper and in that circumstance language so if one were to think generally there would have to be jurisdiction over the owner let's just say that then if you looked at the court file and you saw there was no notice to the owner the lack of jurisdiction would be knowable by looking at the record right in your correct if he if you knew the who the owner was based upon the record of the court proceeding and you saw that based upon the record of the court proceeding that notice was not given to that owner then lack of jurisdiction would affirmatively appear from the face of that court record proceeding in this case the face of the court record proceeding indicated that p in the lower court proceeding of fist to force you know one petition that the deed to p m g had an error in it right ok however that was not clear from the original tax the proceeding original tax the proceeding to the reasonable person and this was the trial court in this case that a reasonable person relying on the record of the original tax proceeding would not have any notice of other cases that say inquiry not exist here on is in houma that they live across the road from each other and they know there's an airport and they say wait a minute you know you you knew this joe information what we're doing is joe shannon essentially says that if you were dealing with the trial court record itself ok there is no do that in this case it doesn't matter because we're only talking about checkmate for it might keep if there was nothing that happened before hand any period not prior to checkmate because my title search shows me affirmatively to peer from the face of the record hold me to that standard i look at the court record i don't see that lack of jurisdiction affirmatively pearson record i don't have to go back and see well you know what happened before checkmate had it below which would be constitutional challenge it to force you know one of the he says the only record that bruce willis has to look at is the record of the trial court proceeding and unless the lack of jurisdiction appears affirmatively in that record and the deed was not part of that record then bruce miller's title is better than divine bank's title and to the extent the bruce miller has any obligation to look at the public real estate records if only from the time going forward from the time of the tax the preceeding wenneker a lie in the court record to what happens after that bruce religious not have to go back in time that's what the legislature has directed him to fo knowledge if you have a tax the proceeding and subsequent to that tax the proceeding up to say it's how well is still in possession of the property and you come to be a third party purchaser then you have notice of post judicial proceeding event that i look at the court record the court record looks ok to me i'm ok but if i will still occupy when i'm buying it i know he's occupying i have to say hey you know what are you doing there but that event and it's not something that appears on the record proper and in our case we have a good piece of property so when bruce miller came in and bought this piece of property he looks at the piece of property there's no calendar up with the different kinds of issues but in  flags that at least raise questions so you say about that how innocent it he has the burden of choice of p f pig and the record here shows that mr millet paid ninety thousand dollars for this piece of property he bought the property there's absolutely no indication that he had any notice only peers on the face of the record mr miller's title prevails and if you hold otherwise you have to invalidate two fourteen zero one eight which respectfully you cannot do it cost that issue has has not properly been to fourteen a one in its entirety we are not attacking the statute if we believe the two fourteen zero one it iis prohibition against going behind the record is confined to cases where it's merely voidable it is an example of exactly that your honor the court held that the judgment was lacking in jurisdiction it was a mechanic's lien case and it held the statutory jurisdiction was lacking because of the peculiar rules in mechanics lanes that there is a time period after the work is completed within which the lien proceeding has to be commenced or the court does not have jurisdiction to conduct the l are there's a lot of things in the text that old record your honor their word different owners identified in the record in the sense of different assets see is the records under the property tax code that presumptively names different owners there was never any real ownership evidence submitted to the court the track searched the check made submitted to the court says on its face that it's not even an opinion of title it's not evidence of ownership all it knowledge of who occupied the land was outside the record and yet the court held that defeated be of peace status of fire the cosmopolitan bank case which has been cited repeatedly in tax state cases held that a failure to search the records before the foreclosure judgment exactly the type of search before the prior judgment which counsel argues to the court doesn't need to be done because of two fourteen  transferring that tax number the near the legal description doesn't make a the difference because the property tax code the sections are one dash one twenty nine dash forty five says the property index numbers control tax proceedings including tax deed proceeds anyone who looks at this deed any title company any experienced examiner any counsel for checkmate anyone the trial judge had she had this deed before her would never have granted that the text did the checkmate requested because one glance at the front of the deed it doesn't tell you who owns the divine parcel the old one parcel but it doesn't tell you who does it it tells you that no one who was given notice in that case no one to whom notice was attempted in the case had anything to do with the old one parcel and i think it does tell you your honor that this p m g deed is not in the chain of title it can't be in the chain of title because it didn't convey the old one parcel regardless of a scrivener's error in the legal description and i think it probably would not have appeared in the grant or gran can prove the negative as it were we can prove that the record of the court together with this deed shows conclusively that no owner no notice of anyone associated with the  parcels ownership was notified in that checkmate taxi proceed they the other point i did find a citation your honor to just a slice to the the rosewell case such as the trial court based the entire due process decision this case and we know that there was no notice we know that there wasn't any minimal diligence done by checkmate we fourteen zero one f that it does not intend to fourteen zero one each to be used to trump a violation of constitutional duty for us as well or any other circumstance which would void the tax deed proceeding be set aside in any court at any time all of the case law that we have brought before the court on constitutional due process says the result of that violation of constitutional due process is an absolutely your honour's correct so that circumstances no your honor i think it would be the two fourteen zero one alf trumps two fourteen zero one easy in those narrow range of circumstances where the underlying proceeding is a absolutely void we would respectfully suggest that's why two fourteen zero one f is in the statute because when that statute was drawn the drafters realize that there are rare cases where the underlying proceeding is utter  there or there is a whole good lines of what i am calling for purposes of discussion here special statutory jurisdiction cases over which joe janice one talking can't disagree your honor and a but the only point i guess i would make here is i don't see how it saves mr miller's attempt to defend the checkmate texting checkmate tax deed was void for a violation of the minimal standards of due process i think the court would have to look a long time to find a clear case of such a violation it's just an utter and complete failure to look at even the one public record teaches us that there does have to be a subsequent inquiry into the diligence of the service of notices under the minimal due process standards that's what the supreme court or when it's vacated low one and that's what the illinois supreme court proceeded to do at length in its decision in the low to the other thing we can discern from well too i think is that row two is one of those they did actually search the public records they did actually identify the parties in interest they identified married lol they did make reasonable efforts to notify mary lo of the proceeding all of that is contradistinction to know that a first patient of the person in ownership no efforts whatsoever to serve the person in the case that bar but in local two i think although people are still arguing about it because of the the specific point that the supreme court in jones versus flowers admitted that they had not addressed before which is what happens when one of the male notices is returned so that the sender of the notice is informed by the fact its return that there are is that it failed to reach the intended recipient is there an additional due process obligation that arises there and the supreme court in the low two found that under  facts and circumstances in the case they had done enough and in fact i think our supreme court believed that they had done more earlier then what the u s supreme court suggested in jones versus flowers were that the extra things that a party who knows the first notice fail might be called upon reasonably to do so it sets those standards of reasonableness but when you contrast that with the case of bar you have an utter and complete absence of