counsel my name is kevin hines i'm here on behalf of the petitioner chrysler group this is a direct appeal from the property tax deal boards that are all my clients claim for what's known as developer relief under section ten thirty it's not an exemption and throughout the states brief repeat and brief they say just the city of chicago case or some sort of heightened standard of burden of proof well read on the standard review here with their saying dynasty sign the play at that time the diocese on the property on january twenty ninth the sale closed and at that point my client became the owner of the property focusing on is the wrong signature on january thirty first after the the sale the closed my client's book the deep and the plan which is attached to the deed and recorded them simultaneously t happened to be a plat available but he didn't want to do anything with it he told the recorder that is when the public property became subdivided it again issue really is here is what's the significance of the signature and reject it because me i think they have a responsibility to look at the documents that are filed you have a person who's standing before you with a deep this is chrysler group is buying this property attached to the deed is a plaque providing all the property signed by somebody other than the chrysler group that seems to be in but if you're saying then accounting not quite that quote taken out of the developer relief under section c then you can keep the sin on your section eight if you determine that there's not a common law so the significance of the signature block is diminished by the fact that we did the certificate of correction well the testimony wasn't well county coroner's office does this regularly there was no testimony to the correction my position is well wrong signature is a lot less significant than you having them wrong a property range because you're talking about two different properties in seven range eight or you know there are might be different matter of course but we did hear is that the same witness said that he wasn't aware that it had any legal fact we said we mentioned that in the brief is that there is this new statutory allowance counties execution of ministerial functions what county officers do triggered by the filing of the defective plat has no bearing bearing on compliance with the code or the class as you said  records we spent years trying to go sheep and it was only upon hearing after the two thousand and eight case that this was really an option that was offered to us so we did it again certificates of i'm still not real clear on the state's positions here there's nothing in the plat act that allows these but it sounds like a certain circumstances can stop councils meanwhile you can correct again when you're creating most spectrum of what can be corrected in what can't be corrected the reality is will county recorder's office does it do it only trust morning records to do it and do it regularly your argument is assigned because at the time they owned the diocese testimony was he should have changed it it was a mistake you should have fixed it before you recorded it and he did but the certificate of correction  decide whether or not there is any legal of fact we took the action based on the recommendation of people we were opposing who said this would fix the problem we relied on and we rely on behavior in practices of the will county recorder's office of what