apply to this case though i'm not arguing that this concept should be thrown out and putting it out of the elements of what i'm sorry are you saying that none of the elements apply here i don't think they do i mean obviously the agreement aspect of it i think is most important than the one that is most highly litigated by would like to go through all four of them unless you want to focus me on one particular you know whatever you think is your strongest argument the we've obviously to go slow requires transaction and what he would actually the intention and so what were the intentions of the parties at this closing on what most of the cases that i read that you intention or was it the bank's intention where he said this was intentional only from his testimony now that's an excellent point in terms of what are the intentions of paragraph war oh pretty much what uniform mortgages for instance i guess to do that they give first place position everybody is paid off everyone is my client that hundred fifty thousand dollars was important as  representing he was going to do but when they left the closing table the intention was everybody gets paid off and there are liens would have priority or at their most i believe the intention so that we've been saying anything that the whole thing the whole know the playing of step up into one or more of those slots i mean that's what they were asking for is that the substance of what was most to happen here was that we became the first pri hot and do we want i gave positive mine grief that this no longer becomes an exception it becomes the rule because paragraph for every case seems it's history that we don't know actually it's history that if you really want to look at it you say when they happen to countrywide and could my client have better their position because countrywide apparently as we the case was from this district another person dealing with a mortgage all say should be the no now there is troubling because we have this motion we consider although the judge often himself never says that there's a almost all part of the same transaction and that's where the hundred fifty thousand is is how the countrywide off most of the country wants goes to pay off their round with the first and second mortgage and again the plaintiff's mortgage is think it should be because we're all looking at mortgage documents and then one person's testimony about that transaction he says both of these mortgages this was not their fault it's not my fault what the conventional subrogation is somehow displacing the campaign's act which is works pretty well and i get my point is situations like this correct in the policy reasons that are stated in the scale if we were not for conventional subrogation it would be much more difficult to provide relief to more the supreme court of this court has said that that is correct how is it easier to get in lending when you have uncertainty about whose mortgages first record in this case directly contradicts that we have a judge who handles mortgages in chancery cases and unions and i gave one and the two has completely opposite conclusions that's not themselves out you can't use the results to justify the analysis because there was no such conventional silver geisha then you deprive all of the homeowners and people of the flexibility to refinance them what you're saying because  second of the countrywide mortgage and says maybe i misread that somehow because the money came from countrywide that's the money that but you don't understand that from the time discharge and we which has priority over the security instrument and paragraph nine permitting the lender to discharge prior mortgages aims capital specifically noted that the words conventional subrogation do not need to be c allegedly harms by this transaction by a circuit course judgments is that they're not receiving when for as is your honour's noted in questioning our counsel there in exactly the same are somewhat in the neighborhood of one point two million dollars the day after these refinancing transactions took place they were behind my clients mortgage in the amount of one point zero five three million dollars so there's really no i think this policy arguments are the ability for a borrower to refinance one but not necessarily all of the mortgages that cover their house certainly opens up the door to put the financial position this is especially so knowing what happened in two thousand and eight two thousand and nine with the mortgage crisis so if they have a first mortgage and then interest rates drop the conventional subrogation allows them to negligent in my home grossly negligent they were considerations of fact surrounding that decision with respect to some language about the express agreement i would perhaps agree that those are going  expressway this mortgage is intended to take out that mortgage over there no problems off and usually they can be checked that's not what we have here we have just standard paragraph work that we're going well we've got us a cynic going on this is i would lose because it's in the document don't you think that the argument might be that it's not of the documents despite the fact that what actually happened claim that mr zircon committed fraud because he made false representation and didn't do what he said he was going to do that you might be entitled to  know my client was supposed to be paid off if you look at the dates here it's only one of the earlier in my father's hundred fifty thousand it so i don't know and it wasn't explored  misters arkenstone which is part of the record meth theory what he says he was going to do and that's what the record is i mean i'm but that bankruptcy fraud argument maybe these because here we actually have to look at the entire record including these closing statements to know what's going on if you just look at the mortgages in this case and know what's going on