august twenty sixth two thousand and five the same day as the execution included with exhibit each of the complaint is nandita to launch convening three for forty eight in your sense the first of which will be the focus of the argument that the first is not a record it documents typically in the public record many times and in this case the first time that the defendant would have had the opportunity to see the snow was when the complaint for foreclosure mortgage was certain  would create a genuine issue of material fact or trial as a preliminary no i will refer to the panel or crash signature on the people toward indorsement on th three of three of the note as the note signature depositions and admissions on file show there is no genuine issue of material five and the moving parties entitle to each other and as a matter of law review here is made you know well the mere suggestion that a genuine issue of material fact exists without supporting documentation will not preclude the entry of summary judgment from a trial issue a fact will exist with there is a dispute as to a material balance or crucially where reasonable minds may differ in drawing inferences from facts which are pamelor crush indorsements are genuine issue of material fact or truth citing here to the original answer in the case presents in the record at pages one seventy nine and one eighty paragraphs twenty one through twenty eight in the affirmative defense of standing i'd like to there are only two in the word crash be asked is closed in the note signature but left open on the a large signature the h in crash is signed with a straight line and each law finishing the honor i believe the crucial point here is that the document itself presents inconsistency is on its face between the two signatures regardless of whether you would draw the conclusion that this is or is not a person signature from the way it looks immediately i think it is a much simpler in france to trot that the latter isn't typically made the same way with the same number and this season and strokes in this case for different matters at different it that the court treats against two competing signatures on the same exhibit with suspicion and makes further inquiry i'm not asking the court and mr de court's not asked the court the trial court level to drop this inference definitively for him what we asked the trial court level to draw the inference was that there was not enough information before the court to say as a matter of balance that these are genuine authentic signature acquired by nation star foreign or war alone services i'll see he does not speak to the possession of the numbers i am going to revisit why some of these inferences could be drawn as to why the cor has presented a genuine issue of material that is sufficient for a truck the mortgage notes are negotiable instruments the safe years to eat and i'll see as five slash three dash one l for transfer requires negotiation that is to section three dash tool one signatures are afforded a presumption of politically but challenges to the validity of signers are not precluded by the statute that is section three dash three away alterations will  no exhibit b to the complaint as presented and show a direct inconsistency in the signatures of a woman but for whom his promissory note would not be enforceable by this particular foreclosure life different from all of the other signature cases odd that he did that the appellate courts have ruled on and have decided the discrepancy here is in the same exhibit the record clearly reflects that the bank produced planes that one of the signatures was said to be valid and one to be a forgery this was not the basis of the decors argument is that all signatures are inconsistent to each other and within the four corners of the record exhibit it's of plaintiff that presumes the factual inferences in the light most favorable to nations to iraq are where we draw inferences most favorable to decor the record reflects no evidence that the transaction from first advantage to lehman brothers  in fact the one ninety one affidavit states that nation star mortgage received its interest as servicing rights from a lot of our war loan services aleksey the rose affidavit does not identify filing to whom the see six four five ne second six two eight nine nine hundred ninety five allows a party to challenge an impeach untrustworthy evidence at trial importantly this does occur in the hardest controls whether expert or latest and only is sufficient and the latest one has the latest money in this case is formally speaking that the signatures do not look alike and add differently crafted lives rationally is not testimony requiring specialized knowledge the contention here is that the plain observation of the signatures will show that they're inconsistent and i grant that it would have been possible to make i reset the note to testimony on this issue and subpoena handwriting simply on review the trial court should have found only that insufficient evidence was presented to it ideations start and accordingly should have denied the motion for summary judgment but for the inferences improperly drawn for nation start in the instant case the summary judgment competent to rebut the plain reading of the signatures on the signatures of pamela crash on one page versus another and i thought was interesting that they talked about well four of the four of the letters are different here as i'm sitting here just count them up there's actually twelve in her name so you know more of the same so i don't know what that means and the documents themselves cannot read the question of fact like that there's no evidence it's not even evidence from the point or from the defendant himself this is their lawyer and it was mr billow there was a different wire  complete we don't have a transcript but presumably the trial judge would need all those things he would been presented with the same article that they've been presented today and he one thing i would like to add is that they didn't get into you know we talked about some of the cases affidavit we don't think there's any genuine issues which are in fact the trial judge was correct and we think this is a simple case where there was an endorsement of blank which is not contradicted we had we'd it was very papered we had possessed it we there's no evidence to be considered in opposition to the prime official case the statements of the counsel in the brief and this goes back to the kimball vs true of the parkway case and all these other cases where you cannot make fact by arguing something in a brief and that's all they do the trial court level that's all they've done here they had opportunities if they wanted to do discovery they did not take advantage of those opportunities and it's too late now to raise them this time assignment after the complaint was filed that raised the question in the air was the second district's opinion that then thought they should do the bird back and there was nothing further said in terms of the record but totally completely different facts from what we've got here and as i said the only facts we have are what the point of what we nation star presented in in our case there's no facts good presented no counter affidavits there's not even any testimony from the from mr dick or himself as a set it's only from the lawyers so you get a blank six percent alike the hardesty case although it is not similar well not exact in the facts did allow the court to examine the signatures as to whether they are suspicious and if they were was just not helpful and so the true reasoning of goldberg is that it's a one ninety one off section fifteen dash fifteen zero six affidavits case and that is what gilbert has stood for in the second district since it was handed down i had a moment to look over the road case and is just a quick word on it the road case turns on the reasoning that  original lender the plaintiff standing would be much in doubt here again there are five parties financial institutions in this case this note has been purportedly transferred at least four times  finally once again this affidavit like the affidavit in gilbert was silent to that issue of standing and only reciting the allegations as made in the complaint he calls nation start the service or at all times it never wants to see its nation's star mortgage the plaintiff it only uses the stand in phrase the pronoun plaintive in the affidavit and so that affidavit is also not helpful to solve the problems of standing caused by the inconsistency w in that in the reasoning as i read it what is fundamentally about the title but factually i'd like the opportunity to supplement the record that is all i have to re