of intent to accelerate the loan the alabama supreme court has decided on two occasions most recently i think in twenty people and because of those things where in ferdinand and wells fargo did not strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the mortgage the plaintiffs have maintained and we court granted a summary judgment on their parents claim for breach of contract and we say that that is not proper for two as a consequence they are not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law were for suspect to that british kind of trick playing where they are to strictly comply with the mortgage and it let me just ask you  on your clients the obligation to properly notify the principal notify freddie mac of any changes in address would you great yes ma'am i agree to that do that by telephone right there is a telephone conversation to be quite different with you know what is the telephone conversation and there was a telephone conversation about trying did your client not provide as a property address and a mailing address then me lean address you made the phone call be if the alabaster address is the proper mailing address correct then why did your client not have the obligation to correct that under the terms of the agreement is mainly in a part of alabaster no because say people can send things in atlanta but you can also be more specific send it to marietta georgia either one works is this a situation where either one of those designat well maybe so yes but that again i'm not arguing with you but that's not the proper to address listed in the know so that your agent can't ban you to a mistake that he made the insurance agents have said throughout this whole deal that was good for the goofs is good for the gander and if you have turns in conditions that are good for the modis company they should also be good i can give you the exact language and this is found document fifty two dash two in the record yes it's a winner shall be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this section tw freddie mac's real estate agent testified at trial that excuse me it looked as though someone was coming and going from the property well i think it raises the question it's a long rest on this notion is that freddie mac could not obtain possession of the property i understand that what does that translate to damages so the district judge impose a reasonable rental value for each month they are times i know how much of that add up to  my recollection is that the total damages award was around seventy thousand and forty were fees i could be wrong on or so i think about thirty thousand dollars so there's a statue approach of the worker who was assigned went back to the power he was mowing the lawn at that property and you know the district judge made a special findings and i believe the senior review is that there has to be clear error to reverse the district court the friday back real estate agent testified it looked as though people were coming and going and so i think the question for this court is whether there is a clear error in those factual findings such  that the district court's awarded damages for wrongful possession should be overturned and i don't think there's a clear here here based on the evidence that was presented at trial mr rankin testified and mrs i can testify freddie mac's real estate agent testified the court heard lots of testimony on whether the yankees make a good the property or not but along those same lines the notices that were posted one of the notices sad if you don't dispose of this property with if you don't move your property within fifteen days we will dispose of that and so sort of related to that question i guess what notice was there to the bank robber there they might be liable for continued so your position is it doesn't really matter that the notice said we're going to dispose of your property if you don't remove that in fifteen days and the fact that they left their property there doesn't somehow relieve them of any responsibility for having done so even though you notice we're going to dispose of it and theoretically they could have thought ok that's fine they're going to dispose of it doesn't matter because you view the factual findings of the district judge as having found that there were still living there well i think there's more than just leaving their personal property there would come back to the property and mow the lawn that's is still some indication of possession that there would be could be some why ability placed on phony math for entering the property and disposing of the property of the personal property pursuant to the notice yes you are and that's precisely why alabama has this ejectment procedure so that her father's property at foreclosure sales can get a court ruling that they are allowed to object the previous owners from the property that's exactly right no owners relying we litigated the ejectment claim and the cataclysms and that's where we are today so what what what what is funny max concerned you posted the notice you said i'm a personal property a well disposed but it still looks like someone's living there in this case freddie mac filed this case to get a court order that it was in told to possession and that's when the it comes brought the camera claim for breach of contract a host of other wrongful foreclosure kind of claims and i'd like to talk a little bit about what the argue on appeal for their breach of contract claim and my understanding of their argument is that they're claiming that because wells fargo sent the notice of default to alabaster and stem mailing they breached the mortgage and the summary judgment was inappropriate and the matter mainly is an unincorporated town in the city  case mr testified as a position they lived in the same property from the closing of the land until the shortly after foreclosure he mentioned on the telephone two separate recorded telephone conversations mr  after the mailing address were in mailing he attached letters to his counterclaim in this case there were addressed to mailing he produced bank statements in discovery in this case that were addressed to my lane and as the court hyper technical view of strict compliance and they wanted to say you must treat company strictly comply to every single term and mortgage well that's just impractical i mean i do think jackson and not promptly notify us if there was a change in the address but i also think this court can determine distinguish turner and jackson because those cases concerned with were concerned with the contents of the nose of default and the issue rights but if you look at the turner case cites that massachusetts case got plenty and also was concerned with the contents of the notes but it made clear that strict compliance does not require that to be there and comes wanted to redeem so that everything that they could fit in that may file or whatever the name went on the moving company truck they put in there and now  that's what happened here mr hanken never went back up there to that property because he did not want to lose his right to retain so that when the second  when that moving truck poor down from up there at the address and alabaster neither one of them have been back even after the court told them you can go all that they were really concerned about losing their right to redeem now and as a consequence we've talked about notices and we talked about  performance and all of that and i heard the lawyers for max say well this is too difficult for us to do all the things required about this contract but we want to hold any gro the condition of the contracts when it comes to pavement and the fall out in those kind of back it's too hard for us to do that with a big national companies to od first to do that in alabama according to the alabama supreme court they say it's not too hot for you sent to us when you take in some bad his house or in this case is a home cause they raised three children over there they had alabama law says that it's not too hard for you to do this let's move to the damages portion of this the  that he would go bad a weekly to look at the property i don't recall him saying anything about any battery going up there on that day i could be wrong but  could to get themselves in position to regain their property some of that included a man to try to save our era thanks so they can do things to get that do in the ba want to hold us responsible for exercise and our rights under the law to file a bankruptcy protection and more importantly