courts and this is what i believe it is the number one well in some it in some it didn't the parties actually agree that they would submit their dispute to a particular forum as opposed to agreeing that there was jurisdiction and th submit that the order is correctly supported lit only by the clear language of the loan agreement which is the controlling document in this case but also by other applicable case law we should we did side in her breach nd with regards to the judgment we've given them the ability to file a letter afterwards giving the cite although they did say it was true seventy three after nine you will have the opportunity to respond to that later when when  motion for summary judgment apple and ignore and continue to ignore in their arguments their own judicial admissions many of the things they are trying to challenge her contests on appeal were admitted by apple and in the answer to complain include any evidence or sworn statement whatsoever it was based on mere allegations and inferences that had no support in the record and what they did into this record is what they're attempting to do again here on appeal so it's back to the my my my my argument on the forms lection clock again the court considered the loan agreement with the controlling document rather council mentioned other language in other documents the court in its opinion denying the dismissal of the complaint did consider these other documents but said the controlling document is the loan agreement this is what set forth the terms and conditions and the obligations between the parties we need not look at these other accessory documents that are not really the main document which is the loan agreement and the court relied on the erikson case and th which we decide on our brief and it stated this is clearly permissive language there is no inclusion in the language of any words that could be considered mandatory shot all exclusive  d i do i do want to clarify that rather counsel mention a case that had i just begun a he did include a footnote in his brief asking the court to take judicial notice he did not attach a copy of the of the opinion but i was involved in this case in that case as well that case is clearly distinguishable in that case the loan agreement did not have a form for action cost so the court looked at other documents and dismissed for other reasons  and challenge them in the motion for summary such if i may i will address these these attempted challenges one by one the st is that we have no standing to file a complaint before this court because we didn't provide evidence of the agreement between my client and the s c i see when the f b i see became receiver of general bank after the bank became insolvent and it was  with the motion for summary judgment and with the complaint endorsed mortgage and promissory notes which clearly give us standing to file a complaint in in court requesting collection of money some for closure a mortgage mortgage deed that requires that the original mortgage the be signed stamped and rubric we submitted a simple copy of the mortgage deed was submitted an updated child study with which evidence is that the mortgage that is in my client's favor in cumbers the property that we are seeking to preclude there is no controversy about this again it was part of their judicial admissions in their answer to go playing cards they allege that the property is not identifiable this despite the fact again that the property was was listed in the complaint and it was one of the allegations that they admitted to we again submit a title study there is no evidence in the record that the property that we're seeking to for close some somehow is not identifiable and foremost and last which is the only argument that brother council set forth in his argument is that the amounts are not liquid we submitted that there's no reason why he should be appealing on the termination that is firm and final with regard to the if you have at and or all bank issues and that his brief fails to again as he did in the district court address any evidence in the contrary that would imply or show that there should court heard in any way in entering the order and summary judgment he does not identify any finding a f is not supported by the evidence and he just the arguments include generalized assertions of these as they did in the district court so we submit that both the order and the judgment should be a friend and we that concludes argument in this case attorney to the lot and attorney fellow you should disconnect from the hearing at this time