paper it appears that there are really three issues that we've raised in our brief and our reply brief one of them is takes up a good portion of the argument and that pertains to the the trial court's decision to my clients to turn over rights that were collected through the operation of the real estate prior to the date in which the receiver was appointed the other two arguments pertain the a word of attorney's fees to the plaintiff as we say without the use of proper one ninety one affidavit and do not attach any of the records to the affidavit to identify the specific tasks that were hearing and then yes the transcript was attached the summary judgment hearing transcript was proud of the report of proceedings and i'm talking about the the  made it heard of the order what happened was that she granted summary judgment and then she said she was granting everything and then the parties worked on i did actually order to be entered because it was a foreclosure she had requested during the course of just simply there was a production of attorney's fees from the apple lease council to myself when the motion for summary judgment was filed there was no actual records attach but i handled this portion of it but i don't remember her again reading any additional production after that after it was all done and i said one hearing on the summary judgment the earlier on the summary judge it was entered after a month or six weeks after that obligation in the traffic court to have one i don't believe so i believe that under the current state of illinois law the judge can still take a look at all the records in the arguments presented and come to a determination on any any of your meetings in objecting to that these specific ones that you're arguing about now absolutely all right the turnover of the rents which seems to be a big portion of our of our peace that i think both sides are willing to acknowledge is that there isn't a direct case i'm playing with similar facts as we've laid out here in a situation in which the the appointment of a receiver in the underlying foreclosure case prior to the appointment of the receiver we filed our five filed for chapter eleven bankruptcy the banker secrecy did for a few years eventually clear and then the judge ordered that during that time all the bank of superseded all the doesn't proceeding in the state court that the funds that had been collected by our client be turned over to the receiver and eventually were kind of came out of nowhere and the funds were never was there is there are it's not a question of whether they were preserved it's a question of the fact that the law requires an earlier of possession to be the it was not part of the original budget that went through in there believe it was even before the cash letter order was entered and so the place has a file of the motion saying that that was an improper payment  was paid back in should be a state so it was a matter of you know a few months before that money came back it was i think it was five or seven thousand dollars total of payment that was made to a that really was now the request to segregate and i believe that if you actually look at the case of j d mark from eight to ninety three it specifically says that a cash collateral order doesn't operate as that would happen in that case the reza trust you're going to and the trustee took the position that the rest did after the bankruptcy do not mistake constitute banks the banks have a right to those rights because they haven't taken anything directly with the sort of factors because it really doesn't come up that often if you think about it very rarely do you have a situation where you have a chapter eleven bankruptcy where it generates sufficient enough income where this would ever be a fight and then to us we have to have the additional step bankruptcy had been dismissed because if a chapter eleven had actually gone further than the plan of been approved there would never have been an argument that this kept this along to the lender or betis of the cash but if that's another reason why it's not it just so happened that the case was dismissed that doesn't automatically turn the cash rather orders into a possession type of word or when this like i said if the chapter eleven continued on there would never have been an argument and that's what j d minor s this that rules because it would it takes its toll roads are there to help a lot of debt or to try to restructure their debt and if they're faced with that thought if the bankruptcy eventually gets dismissed whether it's the next day or two years from now all the sudden that all the sudden now goes to the lender it could potentially impact how those are bad those are actually operated so for good or for bad i believe that they will have long standing policy impacts depending on how this court rules on that particular issue as it pertains to the how a chapter eleven bankruptcy is actually going to go forward so we set a series of cases from ninety's to now that i believe that stand for this proposition that what we did here we know the risk that we could have had a trustee appointed we talked about there are a lot of additional steps that could have been done because of some relief from state this bankruptcy proceeded for serious for a long period of time there was if they twentieth two thousand and thirteen were directing segregation and prohibiting use of the rats was entered by it's the surface rights record after that date through the end of the bankruptcy application to the deficiency on the mortgage but i don't really understand is that during this fourteen month period he's going to be elected by debtor in and there weren't any other what was being done during that i mean were there actual the early stages i don't think we need to get into the details of why it's her problem i think that the role here in the briefs before you show that it's been extraordinary to your situation i would suggest that when you have a client that has a national be you know apprentice state to state to have local counsel with his name i know i know i'm not entirely certain that i would have been permitted to be at some of the hearings without having local counsel with me i can't really override on you know local so i think yes short enough and i guess my only closing comment on that is that judge office had a front row seat for a lot of this litigation and you know i would suggest to this court was in the best position to know from the case i just as a as an opening remark and the council thinks that the court doesn't have any ability to review that because it wasn't specifically called the lower court case i unless and until it gets permission from or that yes require the funds to be placed into this debtor in possession of account subject to budgets that were being done throughout the course of the bankruptcy all that partnership case and that one there was a chapter eleven case that was converted to a chapter seven case and the court said that the lender was only entitled to the value of the property at the time of the bankruptcy filing not the excess funds collected during the think this is a weird interplay of a unique situation between the bankruptcy court and the state court but this was not an affirmative act this doesn't fit under any reported decision to date that constitutes enough of an affirmative act to not only have a protected security interest i mean a perfect discrete interest which everyone agrees they did by the recording but if they didn't influence the security instrument under any current state of the law they cash they were just not h try to convince exact way it was it was rejected by the court so i'm not exactly there isn't a single case out there from before or after the pill that says that the convenience is a trumps possession and so that's the argument th