foreclose the collateral in south carolina the personal property in utah and then in oregon there were eleven tarsus land and then economy and mr smith had signed a personal guarantee on yet which is why was she put to the burden of defending this action when there is no lease agreement and paragraph for which releases marie smith why did she need to be involved she need because he has indicated she had one have an interest in the condominium and the rules require if you're foreclosing a property you have to join any one that may have an interest in that property you know th used i'm sorry including parties need released yes if there's any party that has an interest in the property you're required to name and you do it either in the writ of execution or when situational and so it complied that was filed checks billups didn't ask for any relief against her it simply named her so that if she had an interest in the south carolina property or the oregon property property she did have an interest she only had what happened to us in york and property we had a stipulation and of course on emotion we curtailed on the fact that she didn't have an interest in the south carolina property and we also heard that she didn't have an interest in element the judge in his very opinion states and banks d claim stated a claim for relief he says that although the matter was able to state a claim to bring larry into the action it did so it well i'm not there were markings and then there were other markets who did the original show any markings that the copy produce for the pretrial order the copy attach to the complaint did not show was there anything that those didn't show i'm not we'll get to there materiality later but was there anything visible on the original that was not visible on the stuff you or you or it is forthcoming as i would have wished there was some writing on the original that the opposing party had not seen before the original was produced based the faith finding in part on the failure to produce the originals because the original had markings that were on the copies produced earlier did  there are multiple there are several bases for that fate i'm asking you about one and you turn to the other and i was that you were saying there's been faith because the original wasn't produced until the last minute so right before trial but the only thing that the original showed that the copies did not was totally immaterial so why would that show bad faith so is there such awful motive could they have had to conceal the scribbles that had no legal significance whatsoever whether there's two apps that constitute that one is the initial operation was disclosed there was not disclose w and what does the judge say would have been been different if that had been disclosed i would the proceedings involving her had been different well judge there would not be perceiving us to back one of the the myriad of explanations for why  that's when they decided well we have this deed signed by mr smith we'll cross out reasoning we'll cross out her signature line crossed out the notary and then the discovered alterations now everybody and thirty two dollars written in blue which we had never seen before we had seen one hundred and thirty two but it was always in black and white with so obviously and then there were blue numbers that were white out and then there was a because the bank near each can't you can't give something merit by fabricating a fact and that's what the bank get you might have a legal basis to say we're seeking a deck action but there's no factual basis did you have more questions judge filled that answered my question so if you spend all your time so far we know on the bad faith issue what about the fact that there was no award of damages not even nominal damages on the counter claim just doesn't that preclude your collecting under the attorney fees that you now sir because that would not be we don't put that back it's like were awarded that that's your problem but tell me how these were legally cognize civil damages because as i understand it unless the contract in this case the release of of that contract so what was what were legally card knowledgeable damages the chief just passed it sounds to me like there were all things that you can't collect for breach of contract or not they're not recognized damage damages for breach of the contract it has to be in the contract as in that is there any law supporting an award of damages for breach of contract when the contract  not specifically permitted up just that that issue was not raised by the back one didn't preserve that issue they don't raise it as an issue that try to go to the side or separated on appeal you're saying they didn't judge pacifically this release is different in some ways from a typical contract this release sess we are agreeing not to make you stand in a case and so the very act of three and a half minutes over so i'm going to give him two minutes but not