the consumer the amount of the debt in a meaningful way and the second prong that i believe is very important is was the standard of you review by the district of appropriate and proper and it in a villa in the problem with a villa and the difference with a villa was a villa was only limited to east and since a villa was limited to sixty ninety two d so a villa was only regarding whether it was deceptive or not whether it was in my question is is there any difference meaningful difference in the language in the letter that was sent to your client here and the letter and of the in a villa in the  issue the difficulties but the village didn't a village didn't address for to sixty ninety two g as whether the communication and initial communication the difference was was the letter deceptive or was and  sixty ninety two and sixty nine to two g is whether the letter it is communicating appropriately the amount amount of the debt and in a meaningful way to the consumer can discern it and that was that's the difficulty of the of looking at the safe harbor language in a villa and carlin specifically laid it out carlin said that sixty ninety two g requires that the nischelle letter disclose the has to be what it will be when they got the letter what will be the ship here what is the fishing here about the loan so the letter here says an amount but the consumer wouldn't know how he has to pay the that how much he has to pay in the future he wouldn't know how the interest is accruing every credit card statement that everybody gets tells you this is your interest and this is what you're going to pay in is how long it takes you to pay it it's not complicated for the debt collector to say what you have to do and that's exactly what carlin address and unfortunately in the court below the plaintiff and the district court were not aware of this court's holding in taylor taylor is not does not contradict carlin notice fails to satisfy section sixteen ninety two g if and then they quote karla it a minute's information allowing the least sophisticated consumer to determine the minimum amount  at the time of the notice what she will need to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment in the future and an explanation of any fees in interest that was carlin was about a situation in which the letter didn't state the amount due as of the day to the letter it was all about acute your pay off date and that seems to be different than your case yes so that that gets a good question and that but the difference is that here the concern was not able to determine the amount due when you received the letter or how much she would have to pay at the future but the claim carlin was also told that before they would deposit the check the consumer would have an opportunity to call and find out the exact amount as of the is so and so that's what carl and carl insufficient write so the reason that that's not sufficient is that the it's not a hide and seek game where the consumer has to decide what it is what the debt is based on and what it's going to be in the future and that the consumer has to have a meaningfully can meaningfully communication that's what specifically carlin said and that's what taylor said that carlin stood for and the court below in addition and i apologize but it was in the briefs it's not my thinking alone but there's three district court cases that i didn't cite in the brief but they are in the record that's ruth b solomon apology kirshenbaum and three one receivables and i'd be willing to give a frap letter and  just to clarify that the district court there's a split in the district court of the of reviewing carlene the last thing that i want to address on was that the seven circuit miller which the district court also looked says the problem with the safe harbor letters it's not one size fits all but in miller the seventh circuit looks at cases differently in the seventh circuit it's an issue of fact not an issue of law a question of law so therefore that it's safe harbor later couldn't be determined in the seventh circuit on a three answer motion to dismiss it would have to be after discovery with full disclosure so they can we understand where we're going and then on summary judgment and here the dab of that miller language by the court of the district court below looking at miller i believe that the court was addressing miller and  and conflating issues and it's a problem because here it's a question of law and they're using a question of last entered on something that was adopted by the seventh circuit which is an issue of fact discloses that of the consumer then the clerk at the back collector discharges its duties under the after the c p a now does it make a difference here that we were only speaking about sixty ninety two and not sixty ninety two who interest and fees and therefore making parties so the consumer expanded on the requirement to simply state the amount of the debt as of the date of the letter and said that to the extent that interest and fees are continuing to occur on the debt that the debt collector must so state so that the consumer understands that the amount they pay in the future may not be the full amount to satisfy the debt because of the incurring them in this case on its ladder and endorsed two other safe harbors that are alternatives one was a safe harbor that provided information about the a rate of to be fairly unusual it's actually common and it was actually a first started by the southern circuit in two thousand in the miller case and the second search of the seventh circuit specifically explained that if a debt collector accurately states this particular disclosure of the disclosure of the capital management used in its collection letter and the one indorsed by the second circuit in this case that there  reasonable person could conclude that the back collector have so not accurately both informed the consumer of the balance of the debt as of the date of the letter and accurately inform the consumer that the balance may in meets the requirements of both stating the amount of the debt as of the date of the letter and including a disclosure understandable and clear to the consumer that the balance of the debt may increase because interest and fees are continuing to a notably with the safe harbor language that was used by capital management in this case and it was originally formulated by the second the seventh circuit in miller and adopted by a court in the viola there's also an invitation to call it so the consumer understands that they could call the back collector to get the balance as of any date in the future and be able to pay off exactly what they owe should they choose to do so nevertheless the collection letter somehow violated the f t c because it didn't include extensive detail disclosure relating to the principal amount of interest of fees that had already been charged on the dance and explaining our speculating as to any possible interest fees or charges that the consumer may and or in the future such information is not required by the statutory tax and the f t c yea it's not required by this court's holding in a field and it's not even required by this court's holding in coraline carolyn dealt with an entirely on fees and so in that specific case the court concluded that more information more detail is required so that the consumer could understand what those estimated on are and future fees and charges are made up of when they involve however that's not the case in this letter and that's not the case that was before this court vila as in this case in the deal and the court dealt with a letter that did state the amounts of the bet that as of the date of the letter the issue was whether they the doctor also had to disclose that interest and fees are continuing to brew causing the balance to potentially increase and capital management did exactly backed capital management also by inviting the consumer to call to get their current updated balance information should then miche wish to make a payment in full on that and i will keep this is brief because it sounds like the panel has a very clear understanding on the issues before us and again this corner's are to address the issue and bila but in closing i would just like  to the extent the consumer wishes to receive the actual balance the payoff date as of the bad days the capital management could give them that information like to point out that plaintiff is not asking for some for the collection agent to give an extensive to scoop communication or speculation speculate of communication absolutely not plaintive is just asking for a meaningful way to determine what the debt is when it gets the letter and how much you'll have to pay in the future without having to further engage with the debt collector additionally apologize your honor you would ask about the letter and mailer and the letter in this case and and the letter in miller it was it was a little slightly different to talk about from derry vary from day to day but i don't think that was really the the difference is not the letters i think what the difference is is the mounted a disclosure and that's an idea about a the boilerplate language that sometimes the courts try to create safe harbor letters because it's not really one size fits all and has to go for each different party in addition to which specifically while it's i could understand it cause collectors want to try to distinguish carly regarding a payoff letter it's clear that in carlin the court said they're aware of their holding in a villa however that was limited to sixty nine hundred eighty and so therefore a villa is not a play couple to a sixteen two g case when the collector sends out that first letter that first letter has to have them mount and the mallet has to be meaningful it has to be clear and it has to give the consumer least sophisticated consumers the idea of what that debt is and where he is and how much is going to have to pay it it's not complicated it could to show the interest rate or get show how much he's going to oprah day and then he'd that's it right the just like credit card statements and then the consumer would have it and then be able to move on with their life decide can they pay now do they want to pay later is it accruing it is at a rate that can they afford it they want to pay it down maybe they have other debts they want to balance and those are the people especially that are most affected is that least sophisticated consumer and the last thing is and i believe your honor when you addressed about the boilerplate about language is that the courts trying to adopt safe harbor letters and that's just to say slightly that issue is also on the court have the standing when that letter not the standing to hear the case but the standing to it make a hypothetical idea about  a boiler plate letter a safe harbor language that wasn't really present before the court with the parties thank you very much i would respectfully request that the district court decision below be revers