should have a right to reconsideration so the court also erred on december twenty first by not reconsider its earlier action of confirming for sale an act that was at the december twenty first hearing ham on either december tenth or december twenty first eight to twelve weeks for processing of her application and already contacting them she was told that they lost it misplaced it can't find it didn't know where it was and each time she was told to and did submit a new  she twice asked the court for a continuance so that the notion would have time to find its way into the file and this was denied but the court did go ahead and grant chase's motion for confirmation couldn't i wouldn't speculate as to how the stand here i would take it at face value that perhaps it was filed i don't know why it didn't make it into the court file if she certainly had not scheduled i think the bystanders report makes that clear she had not scheduled her twenty first she failed to attach a copy of her application she failed to prove her point that she had in fact made an application and she had an opportunity she could have provided with her december seventh motion she could have provided  misnomer provide file numerous applications from the end of term of twenty eleven into the time of the sale in the late twenty twelve she has never produced a single one of those applications that be more appropriately a basis to have denied the motion her music she had a hearing her motion was denied because she couldn't even present the basic evidence we're we're in the when she didn't look here to make something go i'm pointing out what really happened i'm going to point out is that with respect to the so called procedural hears the question arises as to what was the prejudice in the she did first and she had an opportunity and that day to present all of her evidence required under fifteen away to five and she did not so if we want to focus on december tenth and stop the birkhead raised about whether she had had her application with her and december tenth if she had hairy application with her which i said is pure speculation then she would not have the opportunity to present it to the trial court that is correct my the lender because they didn't reconsider the application based upon the change in circumstances we don't ever get to point two of the statute here this case is really a case i would submit in on the first point whether if she approved by the preponderance of the evidence that she had made a complete after cation and listen tie them to the relief of fifteen away to five we don't so we don't get to the material  and the court asked her can you show me that you submitted a completed application do you have the application with you and when she couldn't produce the application and could produce moate transmittal she did say she said something submitted an application that's how i read it i guess why i started out the exact language on one of the court to focus on which is affirm couple of reasons on first of all it's not clear that it's not actually clear from the bystanders report from the december twenty first court date why her motion was denied the judge did ask about the sworn testimony he didn't consider a sworn statement so it appears that both sides just argued that there wasn't actually in testimony taken down so she didn't have a full opportunity to present her case all december twenty first making the record shows that if she what's an opportunity to present to why ask you do you have anything i mean hearings are conducted all the time hearings are conducted all the time with no evidence simply argument of counsel what's different about this where do you point to that where the she had prepared for this for motion with documentary evidence of how she had applied and instead of considering that all the court just looked for one specific way of proving she had allowed to and during the course addition to anything else in the record and we know they're based on the bystander chart with yes the bystanders report makes clear that after she didn't have the application that was the end of it she was not allowed to visit any further argument or evidence