consider because it's an eye for the back so you would look a little deeper into the facts you would see if people had notice of the various contracts you would see if there were any red flags out there what if there were no notice to report then as between if i understand your job as between two purchasers of the same property it would be the first to contract for the sale of that property but then reporting means nothing well no you that is recorded is it worth it well under his scenario has a record of the deed yet but the answer would be my estimation here remedies would be against your seller not the person who had  the as the buyer from the same seller yes well i mean he could i mean investigate he could do contract then the first purchaser would be on those ok the first purchaser may not close that sale the first purchaser may do a title search and may not close so it's  recording puts all others out there potentially on notice so whereas you might be with that you know what would happen in the my experience is that all properties that were recorded so when they received a judgment against mr santa really the transcript of the judgment and then the sale and then waited until after the sale closed to mr mcdon before asserting a priority when had they asserted you know as they try to enforce or execute upon that lien ok before the purchase they would have had nothing they would have gotten absolutely nothing position paid for property someone loaned money against property because they got the same bona fide status the same bonafide lender status but they didn't loan anything of value they didn't pay anything about had as a result of the sale as a result of the closing of the sale to mr mcdonough there are in when i talk about these cases being trained in illinois wa time of the contract the lender in this case the united community bank it was mr gunness they loan the purchase money to purchase the property they are also entitled to s runs parallel to that it's a it's a doctrine for the lender and it's there based primarily on the same equitable principles but the lender isn't titled subrogate to that higher priority position because he's paid off the debts of another and so in this case we have two different parties think under the circle doctrines through separate legal doctrines but the same facts who are entitled to rory and that's the case that was  below on the cross motion for summary judgment that was filed there really wasn't a dispute as to those facts of the the dispute and frankly there really wasn't that big of an issue with th santa really they knew that the he was building homes and selling property so they were at least on the wiring wiring notice that the homes he built in the properties he own constructed on were being sold and very state bank had constructed notice certainly of the prior lenders lien at the time they reported their transcript just ok remember and clearly the law of the per state actors trying to get you to pose would be new case law a case that says you have to report a real who's listed on the documents performed a title search and the judge drew the conclusion on islay that that title agent missed this judgment d to either the donna or united community back also cited a several cases more recent than that to morrow for instance and there's a ninth circuit federal case which rolls the same way  in the records and then they will be the money but i agree with every step except the make sure he does number one stuff that's usually performed that's the title have the closing and then you just leave title record again before you turn the room on well i can tell you in my experience i do not believe that's common practice i believe that at the closing no real estate agent handling the closing to owners like you and i who were ashamed wouldn't go to the court house and perform a search after we exchanged those deeds or that deed exchange would be valid was a resume that it was missed by the title agent and the judge then extrapolated that further and he said well because of that here i'm going to impute that error that negligence to mcdonagh and united community bank and that's contrary absolutely contrary to established on the case and it this or rates the coverage afforded by the policy of insurance but the policy of insurance allows step in the shoes of illinois national guard i believe we do united community bank definitely steps into the shoes of the lender if they are through one another well the judge ruled incorrectly on that expanded on she talked about it in her brief we've responded to it we've certainly our way of that argument and it was asserted of the trial level as well as an argument in the motions for summary judgment i think the of not proper for him to consider also would dispute mr sour ones conclusion that there is no illinois case law on this point this very court in the nice case specifically said a contract for deed is an instrument in writing which must be he recorded his contract he did not do that because he did not do that equitable conversion doesn't help her state because there has to be a specific agreement and the cases are very specific about this supreme court cases that talk about mentioning subrogation say that there has to be a specific agreement that the refinancing predator is going to step into the shoes the i and b mortgage it paid off in the in the course of say and the only the only really reference in this case is you see these commitment letter to mr mcdonough they were going to finance its purchase it depends equitable subrogation have patients that are very depends upon the set of circumstances in each case so that the judge in this case had to look at the circumstances of this case and well your honor i think i think what the court did in this case it looked at all the facts united community bank mr mcdonough had an opportunity to prevent this whole thing if they would have recorded the contract to purchase mr mcdonough's contract purchase pre dated price states judgment claim and you see these commitment to mr mcdonough to finance the purchase also created price states to have a record in the contract purchase equitable conversion would have come into play we would not be here i think the judge looked at that the tribes also blocked and  look at what was really going on and what was really going on is the title company missed her states like they had to do something to get it off to save them south from their own misfeasance so they brought suit against pre state in equity and in equity seeking equitable doctrines to satisfy price safely and the judge said no i'm not going to do under the circumstances of this pay i think he took waited a week to report and her statement slipped an hour the week before the result would be the same as in this case as as this court stated in the take us out so her state missed an opportunity to have that happen in this case as well so it's not entirely an inequitable that the court found in this case and i think the court just wasn't looking at the time the court was also looking at the fact that the contract of purchase wasn't recorded you keep saying you should have reported the contract seems to me they should have checked title before they reported her before they closed yes that's the way they should have done that too and that's that's where the title company and if they've done that you would have gotten it so i'm having trouble with the second board it's almost like you're saying the title insurance company in prison sure you which is not true the problem insurance company was not per state had an obligation they were clearly and and seriously under water with mr santa rally they they took the affirmative step i have obtaining a judgement and recording it they did what they were supposed to do under the recording acts but recording a judgement again like i'm saying doesn't do you any good if there's no equity left them if the property is mortgaged up to the hilt you don't gain any different i won't argue that i won't are but that's not the question the question is whether the charge in this case fine equitable principles in this case to the facts of this case whether he abused his discretion and i was what the facts were were stipulated and he made a determination based on the facts that were stipulated that were before him and made a determination on those fa grant i grant the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment because they were asking for relief under summer vacation that they aren't entitled to entitle to work what is the nature of the r they could also they can also do that too and i'm not arguing your honor that there have been every time there's thailand surance but this should be the result in my case i think the judge in this case looked at the whole at the whole picture and he said one party that did what it was supposed to do was per state and we're in an equitable proceeding and i'm just not going to do this that's all he did he didn't he didn't make any kind of contract every equitable conversion case from the beginning of time since the doctor evolved involves an unreported contract that's why it's an equitable rimouski it's to give the person the status they received at the time they entered into the contract there is no law that social contract must be recorded and if you show rule in this case and compel everyone to read or been there sales contracts in order to protect against the you know slim potentiality that someone will record an intervening judgment lead then it's going to be a rush to the courthouse everybody's going to be doing that it would affect sales even in progress at the time the insurance company off the hook but it's the but the judgment will be against them it donna and it's his property that will be taken away you know you're not letting the insurance company off the hook i think that was an erroneous finding not based on claim and that's what elop it it was united community banks funds that were used to pay off illinois state banks so united community bank it celebrated that that position but separately the insurance contract unique thing about title insurance is that it allows the title insurer to cure any problems problems just like this that or gap recordings that arise that can't be detected before closing or someone let's say someone reports something the day of closing or the date or it allows the insurer to go in on behalf of the insurer and sure that defect and a ruling notice of the executive or a contract i believe that notice is a factor that can be considered in weighing that doctrine but i do not believe it's dependent on notice if for instance  notice of mcdonald's rights not for well the notice would now in short answer to your question yes every state ha possibly the line you're referring to the case is if the buyer of the property may have notice of the intervening lien and goes and closes anyway how would you analyze the equitable version doctrine