think it's important to at least summarize a few key issues here back in two thousand and seventeen there was a take notice that was sent to mr reagan and his father at his travelled home in the lower court did contacted the kind of clerk's office he was told the amount of taxes to pay and how to pay them he was told that he needed to pay than by wiring the money to the counties bank account now at the trial the quirks that all testified all the ones who were there all said that they would never give out that information but the lower court did find that mr reagan did receive that information from the critics office because there was no other way that he could have known the correct amount of money and he could have done that he clearly had the money but they told him to pay through wire transfer so he did it took two months before anyone had any idea what happened to the money when the county found the extra ten thousand dollars in change sitting in the treasurer's account once they found the money they issued a check for the full amount that was sent minus the thirty dollars transaction fees they were charged by the bank and they said that check to robert m n which is stephen begins the pellets father who is not deceased robert began at that time was suffering from late stage demands dementia and passed away less than a month after the check was mailed  to this day as far as i'm aware the check has never been cashed it certainly wasn't at the time of trial and there was no other attempt made to contact either of them mr beacons from mr robert reg court said they would have exercised their equitable powers and extended the relief or the the period to redeem and that the trial court said they wanted it would have told mr reagan to go and pay the extra thirty dollars and get his house back some more time passed and june of two thousand and eighteen rolls around when the sheriff shows up in addicts mr beaton from his home between august th when he sent the last trans at part of the transaction and that includes the actual order that was issued by the court and no point to be ever received notice and then once he was aware that the order had been issued in attacks he had been granted when he was addicted he had the motion that we hear upon today filed within twenty six days some background for illinois property tax scheme the purpose of it is quite simple the state needs revenue counties need revenue and one of the ways they get that is by taxing property and when they do what individuals don't pay their property taxes others can come in and purchase the right to the taxes and then at that point there's a redemption care it were an individual can redeem the property under illinois law is considered a right as recognize that in the staff as that in the statute and there is a slew of case law much of which is cited in the briefs that references redemption as a right and not only a right but a substantial right illinois has traditionally favored redemption because they don't want to kick people out of their homes because i want to a law favors redemption courts have generally given liberal construction to redemption last as long as the purchaser is not injured or especially when the and this favorable view of redemption is especially true when a home is potentially lost or potentially going to be lost because a mistake or misinterpretation another thing the courts recognize are these property redemption cases that each one is unique and must be addressed on its own facts and equities now in this case it wasn't just any mistake or misrepresentation it was a mistake a misrepresentation made by the county clerk's office in situations where that is the case where was a government official made a mistake or misrepresentation kordic courts have held the court intervention based on equity as especially appropriate and on top of that told mr began to contact the county clerk there was one it was before the final take notice that said list of ways of payment but that was record referencing payments to real tax or the final take notice that was  there any other questions at this point dealing with the property tax statute there are examples of courts going beyond the plain language of the law one case came out subsequent to the briefs that were submitted in this case i'll just mention that  zero it certainly makes sense to limit the legislative intent is important when ascertaining the limits that were put into place that the legislative intent as courts have expressed was to further the mark discourage tax purchasers from purchasing taxis or something that would really limit their market ability especially one where the situation is so unusual as relying on a government official getting incorrect information proceeding to follow through and filling the duty as you understand it based on county officials instructions if a strict reading of the statute is adopted there will be certain situations where the taxis would be in intentional misrepresentation of a government official or if the taxi was filed after the one year period based on situations like that falling outside of that section two thousand two hundred and forty five dollars and the legislature's intent it makes perfect sense to allow courts to have ethical powers when the forfeiture would be so angry just and the reason that the taxes were not redeemed was based on an error by county official and that's exactly what we have here  known that his taxes had not been accepted that is payment i mean except that he could have been there he could have paid it at that point that money was still in the treasurer's account the judge said he would have had mr being in pain extra thirty dollars and his house would have been with with with equity as i touched on earlier there's a balance of the harm that would be that would happen to either party that that is involved in the case and here the harm to mr reagan is great this was his family home it was mentioned in the record he grew up there he had his workshop there and while there are ways where he could potentially recoup some of the value the value of has been shown would occur if redemption he was allowed now we spoke a little bit earlier about the take notice mr began the trial court held did receive the take notice but what the take notice told him i lastly i would just like to say that mr big an ask this court reversed the trial court's finding the taxi cannot be vacated after thirty days in any situation no matter how regis unless that situation is listed under section forty five there are no further questions it could have come from real cash you could have come from the bank it could have come from someone at the county but that would end but there was no finding that it came from the county clerk and in addition the court said it was speculative as to how they understand one part of the procedure it appears that the property was actually sold to real to us in october of tw and bill your tax it is vital for the system to work but an individual's ability to rely on a government official and how to pay his taxes is equally as important and no other point that mr barbara not that i would like to address is yes the motion was filed eight months after the order itself but only twenty six dollars days after mr b and had actual knowledge of the order and all of the notices and service at least all that the trial court found that mr beacon actually received were sent before he actually paid and then as mr barr did mention the court the lower court did find that had mr gagan shown up at the hearing he would have granted an equitable extension and told him to go pay that extra thirty dollars lastly i would like to address the inde fund that attorney barr brought up while that certainly is an alternative solution it is not by any means a reason to not to not allow equity in this case  just reiterate the earlier prayer for are there any questions