pursuant to seven three five miles yes five dash fifteen dash fifteen zero six and supreme court rule one thirteen and the second question of the nature and extent of protection offered to illinois homeowners and the home affordable modification the payment history is necessary to be reviewed prior to any judgment in this case and the defendant should clearly be able to read and understand the payment history at the time a circuit court granted leads to propound the proposed discovery that production of documents wells fargo answered forty one with identical objections or references to the complaint or the exhibits that were the subject of these regulatory and requests for production perhaps then the most crucial fact on this issue is that nothing changes between june twelfth two thousand and fifteen when the motion for summary judgment file in january fourteenth two thousand and sixteen when it is heard the friends of ours received no information regarding the payment history or any hands of the summary judgment movement who opposes the discovered while the proper procedure is to file a rule one ninety one the affidavit defense opponents brief in reply states accurately what is our position on this issue that homeowners tirelessly and diligently attempted to ascertain the facts contained in the affidavit amounts to a knowing that the trust interviews with the purpose of being able to understand them sufficiently through either admit or contradict them in following the procedure here defendant's  opponents committed themselves to having no other substandard response to the motion for summary judgment because they didn't really want for knowledge of the facts necessary to file counter affidavit the painting history codes the information in the roger in the record and  for help in reading a document offered as evidence against him in a foreclosure proceeding on balance of the act would ease the trial court would err in that i'm hopeful wells fargo says and it's free that the trial court correctly concluded no discovery was needed since wells fargo was in possession of the note indorsed implying certainly this cannot be the standard in our state which has judicial foreclosure water landings mean have alternately lost on the issue of standing during the case the product that the discovery propounded was calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence regarding the skinny regarding the pin in history of th have availability of facts who are from their defenses we try to take discovery depleting prove an affirmative defense of standing on this case and without the benefit of that discovery i don't think i can stand before you today and speculate paragraph nine of the same affidavit states that the amount of the fare for about one year later on the summer nineteen two thousand and fourteen is three hundred sixty three thousand seven hundred forty one dollars seventy nine sides very nearly a two fold increase of the amount we said in connection with hundred seventy two multiplied by only five dollars twenty eight cents equals only ninety thousand seven hundred forty dollars and sixteen cents subtracted from the interest total we say that in the affidavit there is a difference of about eight thousand four hundred seventy one dollars ninety seven cents or two hundred forty days of the purge in the judgment that is simply the maker of these documents there is no contest in the record when the statement was made that the documents were previously made available for inspection and provide an offer was made even to certify these documents and put them as part of the record as defendants of pollen show that they provided supplemental material upon request from mills far they made a verified pleading regarding the events that occurred with respect to the supplemental material provided and why they believe it was requested from them this pleading contain a chronology of the dates of submission of the supplemental material that was requested by the foreclosure playthings drawer arguments the material violation was referenced with the citation to its location and have regulations in total and i thank letter sent to them that i think is on page three seventy nine in the record in the senate bill second two thousand and fourteen this is if you don't pay that x amount which i don't think there contesting there's a deceleration we went through a little bit about how this loan was was there was the then them for interest only payments so the place full didn't move at all because they were still in the interest only section when they defaulted one thing that they talked about in their brief in their arguments today is all the details of the payment history that's out detail those were submitted as part of the summary judgment record and interestingly enough on page if i can find it through sixty seven there's actually been kind of some happened so then what happens we get it we go forward to the chronology is that's that's when june twenty fifteen he files has written a one ninety one affidavit in june of twenty fifteen twenty nine just in what are we on november ninth or twenty fifty five months later we have three notes in file thing that is filing a motion to challenge our objection to file anything now again they're responding to our pursuit for summary judgment present with mr avila at that jan were fourteen or sixteen here i'm sorry i think he was actually at the one in the in july get ahead of myself but anyway going to the january fourteenth twenty sixteen argument which is where the judgment of foreclosures entered the again they didn't find a substantive response there's no contract that there was nothing challenging the veracity of what was submitted in the summary judgment other saying is we still need more discover that point judge as well i don't think you had some six months ago we never really challenged anything that was written to you in that judgement was it it's the put up for sale the sale is up on it will twenty first twenty six tape three months later there's no really this business of this happening was such a big deal to them point two i said that right and maybe that was the confusion but we don't know we can't guess hips at two hundred fifty based act with all kinds of rules and regulations and and but the point of the matter is at no time prior to sale did they come in and say we must stop the sale we're talking to you about it and the briefs are replete with all the back and forth and i don't think there's any evidence in the record that they had submitted all the information that was required to have since the crash in a way that there's one underwriting has to be done on all these not just you know the him but if occasions but any type underwriting and they can't they have to verify income and they have to make sure that the payments even though they're reduced payments are going to be able to be made and if it is a benefit to the borrowers it's not a sword to be used like wait a minute you can't sell my property because i was talking about you know there's procedures that need to be funneled no motions were follow none of this business about even if it's now two point three point two which we argue is even proper because they haven't raised a drop or you said two point two point three two which we anything substantively these are all procedural things that they are what happened then the sale went through there was a motion to approve the sale on march sorry i'm a thirty again this is now almost a month later after they claim you should have given us thirty days to get in there respond there moved stock sale never claimed any violation of point anything they didn't do in a junction again on june twenty second this is not two months after the sale more than thirty days after the sale and they're saying wait a is you have to show that you you submitted an application i don't think that was established on the record we had here and second it has to be material violation here there's no material violation and the judge said it and i'm sure you but you know they didn't say take it back they basically said well you know there's different documents that have ms made it and then again i go back to requirement have to reassess say what you want to it's almost all force of this case because there's a similar case in bermuda is where issue but we get into him we'll we don't see that there's ever any evidence submitted that the application was submitted in complete form which is what it's supposed to be other than mr bill say it and i guess having  our position has been very consistent all along that we lack the knowledge necessary to analyze this payment history to file a counter affidavit based on what this affine said namely that there were no  any any of the information about him as he did made but what was in that affidavit that was calculated from that principle that was applied as other payments there was nothing there that he could have known to file an affidavit on those other amounts are exact section is be exact section two three two two in the record does backrooms two three two i which was the proper section i that's really all the say on the issue but i am aware that this court can only review danger a demo fight is a conclusory nature of what a complete application would be and the fairly of the foreclosure defendant to identify the actual documents that were released from a danger we identified the exact documents and when they were sent and produce those records i am happy to take any questions on the final issue