estate it says question you have an interest in real estate the answer is yes and the question located at living in mortgage says no but it has an arrow that reads possibly thirty thousand foundation was laid with this document yes well we know that brian was not there correct he was served with that with he was served with notice of the hearing but my question is he was least that's not how it usually happens in most cases they're on the hallway talking seeing if they can work something out and then they may come back and represent to the court whatever the situation is cracked and that is exactly what happened but argued to the court that even if you're stepping out into the hall hallway that is still part of a court proceeding because you're there under of that's part of this proceeding whether it's happening in location in front of the judge or in the hallway i i would still first and i don't mean to be play like that i didn't i did not find the second issue is whether the court erred in holding that the house could not be sold to satisfy that the foundations of the pallies argument is that the son's name except for the property insurance this includes property taxes and heat in the sun even plain property taxes on the on the on his taxes another reason the appellate argument that she is not a party to this agreement and therefore should not be counted by is not a solid argument is that she testified as following regarding the house to tell you testified everything was done through my husband he ran that my husband took care of everything and according to richards versus johnson friday lumber company wife holds her husband out as an agent for making of a contract as a stop to deny liability for his acts done on her behalf she in performance i cited a case in my briefcase to remember which case it was but if you have specific performance on behalf of the person who's purchasing it that shows amounts  and gets definite fine it's a definition of terms it gets around statute proxy here the house was purchased the son made over sixty thousand dollars in payments to approve group go out five hundred dollars per month for the room until the citation hearing it gets down to about that thirty thousand dollar range so no i think that's all consistent so you have his testimony house was purchased for ninety thousand five hundred that still shows that there's a fifty fifty three thousand five hundred that by that's a sole enough money to pay for the the balance and the and this judgment the money damage is money rest of the purchase price which is she would get there's enough equity to pay the purchase price to she's not damaged anyway this is just a scheme to avoid a creditor in this matter and we're motion to strike a portion of the appellate state the facts which was to be taken with this case and the statement of facts that i'm asking to be stricken is a oral rendition of what supposedly happened piece an unusual position at this time because there are two legal title holders to this property today donald liger and pat patricia wettig neither are defendants in the case they're both obviously necessary parties if you're going to sell their house but neither dominic or or patricia linacre is a is a party defendant in this case so how can you possibly order a house be sold when the necessary parties aren't even parties so that's just a procedural comment that i have that probably wasn't fully briefed but  we are hearing now that this contract was sufficient that there was money paid this is the exact opposite of what position was taken by the plaintiff earlier in the trial in this case as pointed out in my brief they repeatedly said in their arguments to the court that this contract if it was a contract was obviously insufficient it was not definite enough and it was incomplete and could not possibly be enforced because of the statute frauds now the plaintiff comes here today and says it is complete i mean it's you're ever going to get and it may even be a judicial admission i'm not saying it is it's just very close so you come here and same were involved in a scheme to put a creditor where they're saying uh this contract was just doesn't make sense there was no foundation for that citation discover assets judge but don't you know did not abuse his discretion in refusing to admit that document has never been piece of your could've done that didn't do anything instead you just can't put a document on a table and say admit it isn't evidence ok it just doesn't work that way least in my forty two years so insurance on the home we lost the argument in this case we lost that argument so it's not like we made a judicial mission we pursued that the core did not find that to be a credible argument