today by whether the trial court properly determined that the word saunders a subsequent purchaser to a sheriff's sale was a bona fide purchaser for value such that he took his interest in the property free and clear donna and an amount of two hundred fifty thousand four hundred dollars on december thirtieth two thousand and exchange hiller being was to receive a personal mortgage on the property on the same day that taylor being made it's lo also received another loan from fifth third bank in the amount of fifty five thousand dollars to fit the supposed to receive a second rate unfortunately for whatever reason the fifth third loan was recorded first and th proceeding on the property in two thousand and eight in which it had foreclosed upon its fifty five thousand dollars mortgage lender and saxon learned that in next two thousand and four closed the proceeding warner had been entered which had purported to its lien interest and extinguish it lean on the property shortly after discovering this it filed a motion to quash in that two thousand and proceeding and that judgment which purported to that enter judgment against taylor b an recap of what happened that was initially filed against the hudson the homeowners association and judgment entered in february twenty fourth of two thousand and nine on subsequently council had represented a motion she discovered the nine c provides that once a title has been transferred by a judicial sale that that all any party to the foreclosure or any non record claimant who are notice of foreclosure are barred from bringing any of given direction on what we will look at in order to determine whether a lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the record and the supreme court has said we look at things we look at the pleadings we look at the return of service we look at the judgment that was entered so if you was no affidavit of service filed showing that taylor being had been actually served with the summons and complaint if you had looked at the record in september of two thousand and ten in the two thousand and eight for closure proceeding all you would have found w indicated that taylor being had recently been added as a defendant and then in paragraph five so this is the common the record then let motion to amends are on c three fifty sixty three fifty seven in that motion to well first of all i think if somebody had done it in baree just a simple google search and to set up tobar of two thousand and ten they would have discovered old taylor who aspire for bankruptcy protection therefore i'm going to need to go to the bankruptcy court before i can you know to seek leave before i can serve them and make them a party to the suit and now it was not done i mean i honestly if you have looked at the motion to amend it said cease operations i think a mortgage first yes so he had appeared preet he had signed in with the clerk as mortgages as counsel for mortgage first he had previously a pyrrhic in court on behalf of mortgage first i think it's likely he probably just  poke when he said i represent saxon but who knows we're all speculating here but so there was a contradiction between what the clerk stockett sad who he represented in who he said time my understanding as in this way and this came out when they were briefing the motion to quash is counsel for mortgage first had initially sent the summons and complaint to taylor beans registered agent in oak brook and had then returns her so she apparently cared somebody spoke to somebody named rodney whose title we don't know and ronnie said oh saxon's now surfacing and so based upon that she just served stats and with the summons for taylor being and the complaint was named taylor b and represented that that was sufficient service to the supposed to look at the brick turns of service he's supposed to look at the jury verdict and the judgment that was answer it mr saunders had done that in this matter he would have seen there were a number of terms of service therefore there reason the judgement has already then vacated and the basis right is just that we had that taylor being was not properly served and the court found they weren't served and i think it it does because i think anybody who looks back i mean to take an analogy when we look at what's recorded in the reporter of deeds if something was recorded fifty years ago twenty transactions ago a purchaser today is charged with notice of that even though it was recorded fifty years ago it's the same name anybody who subsequently purchase of mr sanders would have noticed in the yes i mean so it's actually a fairly mr haas that i represent title companies you know all the time and i'm representing for ten years i you know and the title company me you know can very easily go look at the returns of a process or they mean make a business decision now with it to go look at the returns of process and we'll take the rest but the fact is the route is that you're charged with notice of what appears in the record and there is no time limit on it there's there is nothing in the law to support it i think it would be a rewriting of the law i mean we're looking about here and i certainly understand the public policy interest in making sure n to cover her calls in judge siegel's courtroom so no he wasn't getting that day he was appealing that day he checked in for mortgage first so he really was an attorney for the plaintiff mortgage you're charged with knowledge of what is in the record about foreclosure proceeding and you are charged with knowledge of what's in the return of service many of these cases concord air it to with the fed to affidavits where there was affidavit showing proof of service and the court said oh you should have known there was a defect and here you should have known that they were playing just didn't diligently serve the defendant and therefore a notice by publication wasn't sufficient