of foreclosure and sell to we respectfully submit that all of the problems that would be met to grant a discretionary stay are clearly met in this case particularly with regard to the balancing that needs to take place with regard to prejudice that would be suffered by the appellants if the stay is not granted in comparison to the little if no prejudice to the to the plaintiff's pelleas here we have a situation where should this case be allowed to proceed without the stay their position doesn't change their procured their final judgment of foreclosure which will proceed if the appeal is not successful and default interest continues to run out with regard to the merits of the appeal itself we believe that we have a very strong likelihood success on the merits we believe that judge chen's lower court decision is is incorrect in many respects and makes many there are many issues that we believe were wrongly decided under new york was it regards to both statutory and contractual notice provisions with regard to this mortgage particularly with regard to judge to judge chen's decision with regard to the issue of waiver on the on the conditions in the mortgage notice requirement as well as the point of view of the court with regard to both notice is that the discrepancy that exists in the amounts listed that are owed in the notice is not grounds to dismiss  to deny summary judgment particularly with regard to the statutory notice which requires strict compliance with the statute which is not waived particularly that notice is the can we raise that any time and  condition proceed into any foreclosure which becomes a prime a fashion element of the plaintiff's case that they need to prove on summary judgment regardless of the opposition which was raised both in as an affirmative defense in the answer as well as a denial of affirmative representations made by the point of their complaint with regard to their compliance with the statutes so taken in totality by says that particularly when when we balance the prejudice factors of both parties we feel that a stay at ask that we be given a chance to run the course of the appeal with that stay in place because as soon as this is the appeal the stay scuse me is lifted the house is sold and their primary home and residence is gone and then it makes the appeal quite pointless at that point i'm not the individual writing the brief but i believe will be fully briefed in the end of this week or the beginning of next week i believe i don't want to say for certain file i believe so yes your honor and again i can't say for one hundred percent certainty when you say if we don't issue the houses is that hyperbole or is not at all your honor not at all you're on of that there was already a cell schedule that's what led to this application to begin with this was a mortgage foreclosure of a nd mortgage failure of the defendant in the lower court to make mortgage payments since the year two thousand and eleven that is approximately eight years ago all this time the borrower has not been making payments for taxes insurance or maintenance and by further way of background there's also a mortgage on the property that is in excess of seven hundred thousand dollars in which the borrower has not made a payment since two thousand and thirteen along with not making payments for taxes and insurance trying to do you will know the equities are not balance in your favor have a very high road to win the subpoena how and so irregardless of that recognizing that if there is no remedy after sale she says go ahead post a bond and they don't want to post the bond and the bond is not an exorbitant in a man it's just amount to just unlawful now to cover the judgement thousand dollars which is the amount the judge chance go ahead and post the bond and one of the reasons why you see one of the reasons why she said go ahead and post the bond is that when the appellants were making their arguments for the stay they said you know what dollars subdivision six which says if you have a bank or you have a judgment of foreclosure and you are directed to sell the property which is what those judgments say to qualify  you must post to supersede its bond and in their own documentation when they were looking for when this was going on back and forth with the judge and they actually said in their own papers if we do not succeed under sixty two about the balance of hardships here if we were to agree grant the stay pending the resolution and the appeal of the summary judgment what hardship would have your clients endure in that event the house is decreasing in equity there's a large st mortgage on the no one even knows if the property is w at this point he nuff to pay off the st and nd mortgages so as time goes by the interest accrues there is no taxes being paid judge and not only that but the borrower is continuing to collect rents she just sits there  collects rents doesn't make a st mortgage doesn't pay her nd mortgage and judge chen put a receiver in place to collect those rats but they have not a torrent to that receiver i'm trying to get to balancing the hardships and while the property may depreciating we're happy depreciates in value and there's a big hardship for the borrower who won't be able to collect rents anymore thank you thank you  who is willing to assume that burden that's correct all right asking for as that in the alternative if you don't grant this if you want to grant the stay to require them to post a bond to to submit a on notice a judgment a final judgment for closure and sell but it did grant them summary judgment and the final judgment that the court was going to sign the final judgment foreclosure and sale it was just produce a proposed order  notice but it did grant final judgment in the sense because normally didn't appoint a referee or an order of reference it granted summary judgment and judgment of foreclosure and seller settle order on notice and with regard to the bond i want to speak to the bond yes judge chen said about the bond being the full amount owed if the client if the client had two hundred thousand dollars to just hand over we wouldn't be here it would just pay the mortgage off so while we absolutely are pa state court we're dealing with this issue more frequently the you are it's reasonable use an occupancy as opposed to be the standard for setting the bond not the full amount of the judgment which again as i just point out just as a a logical standpoint if if you have the money to pay off the full amount of the j f s then you don't need to have been in foreclosure to begin with and while that was more than willing to work to try to get a bond two hundred thousand dollars on a few days notice is a big again you know again because it is a it was a few days it wasn't where you can post a bond in the next thirty days for example it was it was a relatively short order that bond would have been for the full amount you say one and you threw that was the principle on th right but even to procure individual bell bonds and for example soon we could find one that would be willing to post you still need to put ten percent down which still twenty thousand dollars give or take within a set a very short amount of time these are bars  right thank you very much reserve decision you hear from us shortly