the trustee to seek this court's reversal of the district court's order in favor of the pelly bank of america that effectively reversed the bankruptcy courts order on summary judgment that originally allowed the trustee to avoid the mortgage issue in the bankruptcy proceeding or the bankruptcy of state's benefit now as this court may know the mortgage issue contains a material defect that to propose questions to us if you are you can proceed with such argument as you would why can't might help us and training the questions thank you so it's important to note that for the seven years following the mortgage execution at issue here own at their request i assume the bank of america is that correct that is my assumption now do you know anything about it or we can ask your opponent please ask my  b cannot repair material defect in a mortgage and that is clear in light of the other political saturates with respect to defective certificates of acknowledgment chapter one eighty three sections twenty nine thirty the third reason that the trustee believes the district were aired is because the five b affidavit like the underlying mortgage that it references cannot give constructive notice the trustee and constructive notice being the standard that we hold the bona fide purchasers and it's clear under eleven u s c five forty four that trustees whether or not they can avoid a mortgage the standard to be held against them is not actual most but constructive notice as i had a question about whether that was an issue of federal law or an issue of state law and the few circuits that have looked at it have said that too is a question of state law wide  constructive notice to a bona fide a purchaser you agree with that yes your honor and specifically here actual knowledge is irrelevant under that my reasoning and really all that matters the question is was the mortgage or deed properly recorded because yes so the real question is whether the lien was perfected yes sharking yes so back to the first prong of the argument it is th scotts chapter one hundred four such twenty words clear the legislation you have to draft a statute when it was dealing with material defects and when it was only looking for the opportunity for an attorney or another officer of the court to clarify chain of title so under chapter one eighty three section five be very short and simple it allows an attorney to record an affidavit based on his personal knowledge that provides benefit in clarifying chain type and that's what three section twenty nine and thirty knowing all of the requirements that we must have a strict adherence to the certificate and often rules it appears that it would be logical for the legislature to allow an attorney valid for record and the question was whether or not subsequently recorded documents that were properly recorded for example an assignment a mortgage or an order of notice whether those subsequently recorded  provide constructive notice the trustee in the courts all came out and said you know why because it's a logical it seems that the mortgage itself cannot provide constructive knows to a trustee if that's the situation  title examination would provide constructive notice the trustee i believe that argument is misplaced your honour's because in the in riyadh's opinion which is the basis for that position of the bank the underlying mortgage in that case record that was not the issue and the title examination results were based on whether or not the tracks of land that were cited in the mortgage because they didn't line up with the plan description the title examination results would have revealed all three plots to the attorney so for all those reasons your honor the trustee contends that i called them down but the trust certification does contain the initials at the bottom of the page on purchases of the property and is also an indication that a license was jet no one has made an argument scenario where the mortgage ors didn't execute the mortgage and that would be i believe a totally different line of argument we're not disputing that and it really is on the are so are you saying that the mortgage because it was executed or you're not you're not challenging that is valid as between the parties or is it your position that it is voidable by the mortgage or to solve the problem absolutely but it's not easy it's not the sole mechanism to solve the problem and and i find it it would not would not seem to follow that if after ten years of a mortgage which has been recorded and the trustees position is was void when required it somehow springs back to life after ten years and left us to continue to have some existence of unusual tupelo off found to be trust prohibition or resolving the issue that way i don't believe that one eighty four section twenty four see exclusive remedy i think it is a remedy after ten years this mortgage is good but it doesn't say that's the only way of making the mortgage