for after the bank's failure to respond to this cute and b whether those damages for doximity related to the bank's omission regarding the first issue was the nine five letter  far we contend that it was a valid q w r under the cap one case yes use real words instead of weird abbreviations absolutely may have heard me ask others before you and so the request or the letter requested an accounting of all accounts including all payments and deposits there to where they're from from the principal interest tax and escrow accounts and we also contend that this this possible to generalise my request but not limited to one acronym at a time i know my deficiency ok and if i could just clarify the district judge kept referring to the september ninth letter and that's got to be a typo right because we're talking written request requiring some action i think this is the pressure point in this case is really on the cause ation church so maybe skip right to that absolutely or ok there's two  created as to whether the damages occurred after the banks failed to respond by arguing essentially two categories of damages emotional pain and suffering and strife stress there was prescription medication and therapy that she received her being in a limbo state of not knowing her future with respect to these issues and to not knowing how to take the next steps respect to the second category these are the real damages we are contending that you know essentially there was a continued result where there was extended period the deterioration of real property damages there was continued fines code violations and an inability to reside now instead and potentially outstanding one is owed from the bank to the mortgage or again this is an appellate brief seventeen to eighteen the consistent  generally derived from an inability to secure the whole we think this meets the cap on standards of approving that after the bank didn't respond to their worth because there were damages that continued to happen the real crux of this speaks to process because in paragraph twenty three of her after the affidavit she states that if the bank had addressed the q w r then i would have been able to get funds to make repairs to the home or i would have been able to be in receipt of an explanation and able to plan my next steps we contend that the question of fact a question of fact is created with respect to proximate cause regarding whether if the bank responded to her ability to get funds we believe that creates a question of fact because if they showed her how to get the funds for it's proximately related to the damages if they showed her how to get the funds she would have been able to to  real property damages as they were all derived from her inability to secure a repair of the whole all that predated the september fifth letter though all of the band alyssum inability to secure the home the inability to make make payments and good know what was going on with her mortgage and the fact that her relatives weren't making the payment after she'd taken the home and the breakdown of the marriage in the diagnosis of bipolar disorder and other  accrue after the bank didn't respond well that doesn't establish a causal link right so it's just still got problems there ongoing but the bank can't be held responsible for that unless you can establish a causal link to the failure to provide an adequate response and we know there was a response that begs the question about whether it was adequate or not right so but in the present posture we do need a causal link i understand your honor i'll give you a for instance if the bank had responded to the kid with q w r and provided to her how to receive more potential monies owed i in the escrow account from the insurance company she should she could have secured funds to secure the home and stop the elap that that would be that would be one example and the stacks imposes that substantive requirement on the bank in response to a qualified written request for information so it's just an informational request she would have understood whether she had the ability to take next steps with the bank or not but she was left in a state of limbo that did cause her motional pain and suffering through anxiety which she did receive medical treatment for your honor my this for me please the court you've already asked that we just kind of cut to the damages and i don't want to belabor the point but that's what i will address first it's under stupid among the parties that there was a letter dated september fifth i believe it was i think the record reflects that it was mailed maybe that it was mailed on september ninth and maybe that's where that september ninth thinking but that this wonderment sent to the bank a letter dated september fifth twenty fifteen min to the extent that the bank would have been required to respond or asked if it was in fact a qualified written request that duty would have arose about october fifth to twenty thirteen after she had purchased the home a conflict with the family she's forced to move out of the home the home is vacant the home is vandalized in two thousand and fourteen i believe two or three times twenty fifteen it's legalized again early twenty fifteen during the summer of two thousand and fifteen there's a storm knocks a tree down on the roof now you them damage to the roof of the home is now exposed to the elements you have things that are happening within the family that i that it's all within the record and again like it's a very unfortunate things but all of these things predate october five and again september five twenty fifteen the date of the letter the medical issues the treatment for his id bipolar and attached to her affidavit miss lenderman included a note from a doctor there's also a list of prescription medication she's taking as well as a list of illnesses and then sicknesses of that list of illnesses and sicknesses there's about thirty in the majority of them list onset dates that are prior to september five twenty fifteen there are five i believe that don't have an onset date at all to the extent that there are ones that do post date september october twenty fifteen time period those show up around april i believe twenty sixteen as a result as a lower court determined there was no evidence or a genuine issue of the proximate cause of the borrower in the images as they relate to a claim under the act the other issue that the slenderman raised on appeal was whether that september five letter was in fact they qualified written request the bank contends that was an under allowed to send a letter to the lender and after about the servicing of their loans under the statute twenty five zero three twenty five twenty six zero five excuse me twenty six zero five i request as such the bank contends that this was a request under the terms of the statute if there are no questions