good morning i just may please the court i'm attorney brian people i represent plaintiffs appellants terence and dixie moore in this case before diving into the rather complicated facts and the myriad of legal arguments here i want to address nature both of these statutes are intended to provide protections and benefits to consumers both of these statutes are to be liberally administered to achieve their ends and both of these statutes have now been the subject of litigation between the morris and wells that resulted in the district court denying mr and mrs moore a jury trial and their very serious claims of emotional distress caused by wells fargo's inability to answer a series of although lengthy very simple questions that the more sad for wells fargo just prior to the house being sold i personally took a court order so we begin with the respite issues of the primary issue i watched this court to address i want to bring to the court's attention is that seventh circuit has never ruled in any meaningful way or direct way on whether qualified written requests include requests for information related to attempted or failed loan modifications and this has been the subject of several of the lower courts in this district have held that questions which relate in some sense to the modification of a loan or the attempted modification of a loan need not be answered by servicers and the rationale behind that judge currently held that the moore's request for information related to a modification in two thousand and eleven i specifically the rationale behind that and the programs they were considered for denied did not need to be answered by wells fargo because in judge connally's determination those related to loan modifications rather than to servicing the loan but servicing under arrest by and under the regulations and acted after twenty fourteen under the dodd frank changes a serious and substantial question both about the interpretation or results of the modification and about wells fargo's role with respect to the ownership or servicing of the note at that held in declining a respite challenge to these seeking to enforce a loan modification or to correct a loan modification they're asking for information that wells fargo about what wells fargo did with the actions it took in respect to honor so what were to be litigated with respect to twenty eleven modification well there are lots of things as were shown in this case that were to be litigated with respect to the twenty eleven modification but that's not an issue with respect to a qualified written request under arrest but as mr moore and mr moore indicated in their affidavits in this case one thing they hoped to do with their information achieved in a qualified written request was to convince the state court that they shouldn't confirm the sale and finalize the transfer of their house but with respect to a rest requalified written request you're not requesting information specifically for litigation you're requesting information to help you answer questions you have about your loan and so with respect to that qualified written request it didn't matter if they could use it in litigation or intended to use it in litigation or if it would be harmful or helpful it mattered that the request related to the service in alone and set up with a question that could be answered and it question i wasn't answered go further can i ask you what role mrs gore plays in this case mrs moore is the she was not a party to any of these transactions and she was not a party to the contract but mrs moore resides in the house and she was a recipient of it or should have been a recipient of information her husband as the borrower on the note obtained you know two children have claims under under arrest but anyone damaged by a failure to comply with r can maintain a claim for those over when child for example who's upset because her parents are struggling with closure and all of these fights with the bank would be able to bring a claim her emotional distress the nine signatory to the contract has a claim i don't think it's any of your money i'm sorry neither am i ok and i would include mrs moore as a non signatory correct i think the fact that no court has ever held that someone can have such a claim doesn't and they're still living in the house they are probably making payments under the plant yes there bankruptcy plan requires them to make their current payments as were established by i believe the twenty eleven modification and also payments on the file why don't the rest claims belong to the bankruptcy estate the recipe claims may be an asset of the bankruptcy court but the bankruptcy court has not ever taken believe that the question would be whether it's a real party in interest claim because the trustee in bankruptcy on behalf of the bankruptcy estate could take control of the morris claims and litigate them on behalf of the bankruptcy estate but in a chapter thirteen case the situation differs somewhat from  litigation of claims like these absent some good reason for the trustee to do so so i don't know offhand without consulting the bankruptcy record if this was disclosed the bankruptcy lawyer was aware of the pending litigation when the chapter thirteen was filed and i  believe this was addressed by stipulation the bankruptcy court i'm just not one hundred percent certain at this moment about that i don't think that this would be a jurisdictional standing issue because again the morse had the option of dismissing their chapter thirteen at any time which would revert everything else fargo did not respond to in particular questions related to disbursements escrow account and who those payments were made to and wells fargo did not respond to a request for information concerning payments made on the account prior to twenty i believe they just close from twenty thirteen certainly going twenty forty nine but the request was to go back to twenty and they did not provide an accounting back as far as the moore's want to going to go with respect to the escrow payments and the lack of accounting of the payments mr moore filed in this court an affidavit that asserted that convince the state court that the original basis for reopening had been faulty state court foreclosures in wisconsin are equitable in nature and the court would have the option of reopening or simply delaying confirmation but with respect to the  was provided information that showed that he had paid twenty four thousand dollars over the course of the three years provided ten thousand of that was applied to the escrow account mr moore testified in his affidavit that he never had an escrow account much of the payments were going back prior to twenty four thousand at this point so his documentation is simply this testimony that he had insurance in place at the time at this point so for summary judgment purposes he testified that he always had current homeowners insurance through a different policy than that pa wasn't dissatisfaction with the answers that was it was that no answers were saved to those inquiries with respect to why they foreclosure judgments itself doesn't satisfy that and wisconsin before going to foreclosure judgment is step one of the two step process the foreclosure judgment determines the owed that's the time you have to say yes if you want to appeal from or correct by the court of appeals the amount in the judgment for closure you would have to file an appeal from the original judgment of foreclosure but that's not the only remedy a b litigants can also ask the court to exercise equitable discretion to amend the judgment of foreclosure either equitably or through wisconsin statute hedo six zero seven one g which allows an amendment to any equitable judgment such as foreclosure at any time without regard to  was scots and litigants can also challenge the confirmation of sale or the redemption amount i by attending this information prior to the confirmation of sale in wisconsin the judgment foreclosure fix is the amount only subject to later determination by the court and then when it's sold when the house is sold at a sheriff's sale there is a final hearing where the court will hear evidence related to the nature of the sale on the amount paid in determine if it you confirm the sale so is the sale because the sale would hurt in this particularly was that the moore's between receiving the inadequate answers and going into state court had to fear the entire time that their failure to produce this information would in fact hamper their ability to litigate the case the fact that it did in fact hamper their ability to litigate the case justifies the emotional distress that they felt at the time and we feel that's enough of a causal connection to get to the jury and let the jury decide whether the distress they felt was from not getting answers they hoped used to fight or from seeing their household for six and a half years he did not claim that he was current on the mortgage at the time that was our goal at the time that wells fargo according to mr moore directed toward the bank to pursue the foreclosure these issues are important when in opposition to our motion for summary judgment in the district court mr maher claim for the first time that he was current when george being foreclosed on him in two thousand and eleven after that point based on that allegation mr morris started alleging that he had suffered damage damages because wells fargo wrongfully caused or for closure prior to that point the main focus of this statute two to four point seven seven those two are the claims that primarily attack the underlying for closure in particular they attacked the validity of the two thousand and one mortgage agreement they attacked the amount the two thousand and eleven loan modification agreement he felt wells fargo should have been foreclosing on him then that's true that's an issue that he was required to raise in the foreclosure action that's not an issue that's before this court now and perhaps somewhat understandably a latch a last ditch effort to avoid the consequences of his financial decisions and the litigation that occurred in the state court but at the same time that mr moore they filed his suit is these claims did it i'm sorry connor claims that maturity after judgment the problem is these claims he's trying to me didn't mature after the judgment they would have mature before the judgment if he had any fear as to whether he was in default or not when was not a party to the state court action because it opened and closed it's closed except for her to the extent that the seal has to be confirmed but it can't be  want to know for the record that obviously claim per claim preclusion they have very rules of playing for claim preclusion specifically state that there has to be an identity of the parties or their privileges and here the those types of counter claims he needed to raise them whether it was against wells fargo or whether it was against the lender attempting to foreclose on them so these are not claims that are unique to wells fargo there are claims that he could just modification process or preview the modification process it is answered by the fact that they could not come to claim against wells fargo because wells fargo was not a party to the lower court action they would have to commence a separate action against wells fargo to complain about the handling of the twenty eleven modification in response to the court's records goldman questions there's nothing in this case that indicates the mores are attacking the judgment of foreclosure or the state court action whatsoever that's being handled in the bankruptcy court or they will complete their look at we're looking at claim preclusion as counsel indicated that really boils down to that it's true that what you said i think it goes back to the point you made before he sat down before and just correct me if i'm mistaken on this and that is that the rest of the action we really want to pursue here is