attorney essentially consents to a judgment on their behalf without their knowledge without or of their authorization and what's the proper procedure to go about addressing in this case  r my clients were cited for various housing code violations in the city in february of two thousand and eight i won't go through the whole record the attorney who was representing them at the time walked into court with opposing counsel and said you know we're going to consent to a judgment here at least admit to liability and that ownership will go ahead and present the court with their greed order to that effect sometime down the road in about a month that's exactly what happened from that moment forward my clients were stripped of their ability to spend case certainly on liability grounds and at least with respect to dennis  and that presumption is rebutted by affirmative evidence that the client didn't authorize a settlement didn't know about the settlement and that's exactly what happened in this case in the twel and i have been on this property individually since two thousand and three i'm a member of an n l c here there was no reason to impose any liability on mr coburn whatsoever in th the other defendants were certainly stripped of their ability to defend on the merits of the various violations by virtue of the march two thousand and eight sensually consent order emitting li was no transcript of the hearing actually done at the two twelve three hearing and yes candidly there was no bystanders record but for purposes of the record i think more importantly was there was no response filed to the petition the only thing that's out there your honor is my client's and verified petition saying i never authorized this jury do any of this i didn't know about it i didn't authorize it i didn't consent to it and by the way i haven't been an oner property since two thousand and three here is a record copy of a deed which by the way we were trying to find off throughout the proceedings and the irony of all of this is that the deed that evidence that the property had been conveyed from dennis colburn individually in two thousand and three to this l l c was prepared by mr buffett the attorney that represented them in the building back and allowed following year plus events to unfold and allowed himself with the knowledge that he didn't even own this property to have a potential of sixty five thousand dollars or more in judgment entered against him was the night to set aside that so there was a one of the cases in the partition case that was cited by the by the f a lease where the client was literally standing silently by next to his counsel while coun his tires and trucks involved a case where the president of the company had signed off on a settlement the day that it was entered he knew about the case there was there was a post trial discovery done in the case and a full and evidentiary hearing to find out who knew what and when did they know it in order to report in order to address the report of a presumption that the attorney didn't have the authority to bind his client none of that happened in this case the only thing that happened post trial was my client's unrebutted petition that says i didn't nobody i didn't authorize it and i don't own this property and i haven't owned this property since two thousand and three it just seems that the fundamental fairness and justice would dictate that at a minimum the court could have held an evidentiary hearing the case that as well a member of n l c can be held liable for certain violations of certain statutes i absolutely agree that just not this one the steps you can particular is very specific as to you know who's had no control over this property that's all we have here based on that finding it's completely unjust for a judgment a money judgment to have been entered against dennis certainly in light of the fact that the basis of all of that was the fact that his own counsel stripped him of all of his defenses without his no knowledge o fighting that where there is not a report of proceedings or a bystander's report the trial court will be presumed to have had a sufficient basis in law in fact support its decision especially this as an occupy property c and the record on that page is thirty six thirty seven thirty eight leases for the property there were twenty one violation i'll stay within the record and simply state that the fact that we entered into an agreement with mister but the defendant's counsel there required certain things to be done to say when they found out they should these have to say how they found her haps attaching correspondence or something like that and why they didn't know until further in the that's also been our position from the litigation and i don't know if that answers your question is it it is a record that they presented a record i don't i don't know that there's been a finding one way or the other i'm there's also recorded did that and it's executed that's in the record dennis their their first motion to dismiss on whether they know the deed was recorded or nap and this could still be an owner within the meaning of hundred two of the international property maintenance code because it for provides for any person agent operator firm or corporation having a legal or an equitable interest in the property or otherwise record in the state county or municipal records as having the equal or equitable title to the property or otherwise having control of the property any one of those things could make tennis  codes that affect people's lives and it is important that those who grant rental property held accountable for the condition of their property we would be there's been a lot of changes with respect to various aspects of government since that time we have to have the inspectors back we have to have two years old testimony would be older public resources that are best t thank you of course we're weary of the public safety and health service here i would be standing here saying that that my client should be treated any differently in this respect than anyone else  but the fact is that if it was wrong from the start and from the start i'm talking about february of two thousand and eight it's wrong as we sit here now and the why's and  wherefore's we believe should have been redressed that the trial the finest so larger honor because they were these fines are statutory per violation per day and the seventy seven days mr bo because you know somebody maybe andrew coburn must have known that he had agreed to go ahead and do all all of these things or that he had agreed to the entry of a judge and stripping himself and his father of of their defen it's just that it's easily as reasonable to presume that the conversation between attorney bug and recorder and was you've got this complaint that you're facing you better get these things done and that's what is done burnout and there's nothing contradicting that record at any moment in any of that except that he's got the luxury of having sixty five thousand dollars price tag attached to this point as far as the record is concerned  we believe that it is adequate now we don't have a transcript of what occurred during the argument in july two thousand and twelve three petition but the what the record what is in the record is on con  the march two thousand and eight order was centered essentially falling on the sword but reserving everything for sentencing following that council located the deed file the two fourteen  petition to vacate the agreed judgment order that was entered and the trial court said well there hasn't been a final judgment entered here yet so the fourteen zero one petition isn't you know isn't timely so i'm denying it has moved but the deed was in front of the court it's possible that the trial judge said that but what that doesn't do is is that your honor it doesn't change the the underlying