it's a well written opinion or memorandum of order but has his promise his focus and his song based for the ruling you made was that mr and mrs mcwilliams with a mortgage or course had nothing to convey when they gave this a p and mortgage the first mortgage but isn't that right i mean by the way i i'm going to ask several questions about this because i don't have much personal experience on trying to put this together you have to kind of explain to me what's going on here but i mean this is basic property was stuff they conveyed to the trust well they own it i can give the trust a mortgage why would i think well you have to look is well to a title search mortgage that had been given by mr or mrs mcwilliams individually prior to bank champagnes mortgage so they they would they would he would be on notice that that mortgage helping him and which would at least raise the question we respectfully take issue with that because they certainly did have something to say they had the same interest as trustees to convey they could have a second mortgage or third order fifth mortgage as trustees and the striking thing this as an example or in a partnership or maybe present of a corporation but the point is it seems to me that if you're making legally  understood what they were this so yeah i'm really signing this is present the perfectly and they all knew it and this is a contract with her for i suppose that might be one thing but that's doesn't with this bad economic times it was a mortgage the same property twice and get a half million bucks that's not how it appears from the document well but if if we were to agree with your had on their minds their intent they want to give the mortgage because they want the proceeds of the loan which were what they're used for but certainly for their benefit and the bank a b m obviously would have wanted to have that more they wouldn't loan the money without the spirit of the party and whether we distinguish between individually or trustee i don't i don't know that we can everybody wanted to accomplish the same thing they wanted a mortgage on these premises  any party or for any  fine and that's a little more obviously a little more unconscionable than the situation versus a i think from an equitable perspective everybody knew what was supposed to have somebody screwed up on the technical aspects of the  said oh i know that that more than that's nothing but trouble but no no no long committees ever going to do that is there any indication record you know or just circuit court now this court to overcome two fundamental flaws one is that a v and more into was executed by the wrong parties was executed by the individuals and should have been executed by can generally there were other relationships that bank champaign had with the mcwilliams namely a business and that is in the record in general and so that's something that is a approximately two hundred seventy five thousand pretty much the mortgage covered the whole thing i mean there were not thought about the house with a lot of equity beyond the borders of the best correct that's correct yeah i can  it's invalid to the extent that another part namely bank champaign and its search may have identified and created a mortgage to be executed by the plough or true owner namely the trust and bank champaign is later harmed by the fact that oh this other mortgage is coming into the picture which was yes executed prior in time but actually cuter private pr they're the only people in the world that have any authority over their property at that point it's only people in the world that you knew anything on their property yes other than the trust c and yet quite bluntly form really matters in this situation ah if it's not being executed in their proper capacity you know maybe it's enforceable our position is that it certainly is not an forcible we're a third party in the situation and champagne is injured by their inability to get it done right and it's dollars wouldn't you want to have a full title search to make sure you got that secured absolutely yes yes if so if you decided to go the cheap route use this fall is the