i think a buff either of you gentlemen not been here before ah if not and i don't really care at least one of you i don't recognize  just a brief statement about our procedures here course you know that technically each time i gets fifteen minutes the case gets a half hour you know anything about our vision i not say he that it was successful unless the sarah it's in your impressed they have one simultaneous so that they travel under the same consideration of the eleven thousand dollars right yeah held there's no right to foreclose one individual on a mortgage of any act is there no i mean they don't you have to go into court to do that than you do because  fault well it's not even in the event of default but that but they had when it comes to foreclosure even though there is a equity every damn shame there is a right to redeem here basically given and this mortgage rights as contract so that in this particular event the your client would hold that even if it's an equitable mortgage he keeps the property in the event that the murray doesn't exercise her right to redeem within three years and pay back and i would presume that that's where you would stand that there is no foreclosure proceedings because the deal is sprouter as an outright  a sense here is what i'm point for i mean right now this deal is this is what purports must you know to be a complete deal all designed to get before the uniform commercial code and before i believe various modifications to the common law were made to substitute security interest for conveyance of conditional conveyance of title standing in line he mounts and in so far as you're attempting to turn the carrier into a private attorney general which is not as far as you're concerned  so but that's not true you have the rocket case ah and you have the melrose park that deal with that issue as to whether a third before the close as opposed to occurring after a close so being a justice johnson makes a distinction between me of the right of the insure let me give you something to maybe spend your above on alternately the question is whether we as he judicial branch of government ought to and i'm not talking about informally i'm using this as legal care category rather we can't land  some powers to uphold a transaction that smells ba forty nine thousand dollars if there was a recount then the other hand rejected one hundred seventy thousand for the property the disparity is going alon advantage of something that doesn't impact goods not benefits but up the rest and i threw a bet out because that's your demon that your opponent's going  grows to thirty nine thousand when he pays off the entire market while i mean she still had her or preexisting will so that's thirty nine passengers really interest on her she would have paid interest on her mortgage in addition to the ranch not a creek preempt a park getting it's thirty nine thousand she's paying six thousand dollars a year on a thirty nine thousand dollar coverage where she'd be able to the man if the slayer occurred within the three years we should be able to demand the property or i'm attempting to get something out of the posture of that with which we should as a court view who the insurance carrier in this transaction often the case that and i don't know that the two mics i don't i don't know if  lie except in a very narrow context which is whether your quit claim deed should have any status of all in this transaction and if not then everything here is is whether a judge who catches the window of a case is being a sharp practice can summary judgment the case or have the patience and wait for a trial before these you like of this insurance company in coming forward with a refund welly the supreme court others an early case sign that says that they can't that they have to immediately  dismissed what exactly if you leave out the act what is the misrepresentation or the omissions foreign omissions that are in the record that we can go to i think you missions are that he the question is which is the quick is the manner right for the courts to make that determination can it be done as a matter of summary judgment on the basis as a matter of law that there are no genuine issues of material fact or are must the court waits until the parties stand their trial so that it could confront its suspicions one judgment to me and i understand that i'm not sure there's contrary evidence weigh in for it's the plaintiff was given an opportunity to present those inferences and none were presented to be way plying the script letters of the of the mortgage fraud act that says eighty two percent of the value supposing it was eighty one percent of the value are you indicating now that the court a year before its effective date should have anticipated an eighty two percent requirement supposing it were sixty percent requirement even if you're right in terms of both and all the pretty existing policy is that tara sufficiently exposed her to stand just by looking at this transaction determine this need without any issue statute care legitimately it but bad even without the statute that would be a sufficient substantial indication of fraud yes or what is the third only reinforce what did this case in granting so they can yes or now do you think that the same time the insurance company should be allowed to benefit from that without a by i believe those work that was again there are no obvious ones here the say yes they may have made food disclosures but there's no indication here that they made that they dealing with the legal inequitable concept the public policy that we're trying to determine on major riddle basis we're not sitting here as private parties evaluating the mortality of one party or on and you know i but what is the court's or what it what is the policy provide in terms of the action and it states so it's they've said this wasn't based on this representation what is the policy just the policy log i would disagree because the revenues are clearest after they are only for the home on one three one question for you that probably should have asked earlier and i may with with the least of my colleagues in the to the full value of the house or a summary judgment improper here all if we take equitable conversion as being an issue that frankly gives your client insurable interest of eleven thousand maybe fourteen thousand dollars because it's limited to the amount the physic i'm the other hand if summary judgment