years and nine months after mention during this argument that say simply because an owner does not it's sir with a take notice this not me that that rises to the level of fraud sufficient to make a bit more and that's what we have here  will but that seems to be our issue here why shouldn't the if it's true there's a team personal jurisdiction over this why esn't that address the question now is it just the should go all the is in the court required to decide the personal jurisdiction question because well if there's no personal jurisdiction isn't the order  was publication in that other pace also in the waverly newspaper i feel you know i can't i don't want to try to answer that so i don't know i don't know if it was redeemed prior to for which we don't have an issue here this was for compatible person or harm holding the reporter ownership or other recorded interest in the property that he or she was not named in the public owner did not actually receive notice of tax sale even if the statement had been made to the court that service has made is not sufficient grounds to grant relief in the civil practice act provisions relating to relief from found and they lived and worked in jacksonville it was not a difficult problem to locate them or serve certainly no evidence of any effort to conceal etc why wasn't the se section twenty two dash fifteen actually the act specifically said that same formal notice shall also be served on all other owners and parties service of the of the notice on party in question that you know there is an after to be made by subsequent service jack white status status says it's ok to do it at the residence but not elsewhere even though we paying their taxes that's the system that the legislatures establish so taxes will be paid the governments will get the money texas are supposed to represent there's a procedure whereby the people don't pay unorganised have been living at the property up to two thousand and three and they moved out in two thousand and three and of course you have three taxes came to the certain your honor but i believe there is some case law that indicates that that changes the picture that if the that that even assuming that at this point in time that the deed can be  treated as ordered that if there is a sale to a bona fide a purchaser at that point that that may effectively deprive the original property owners of their ability to do anything about it richard archer i'm not positive i believe i saw that i said i mean it's obviously not a immediate issue in the case i believe i saw some reference to that in one of the world has heard of terms of market ability of titles yes it could certainly but i think the i think what he what he should have done first cause he should not have relied on a purported substitute service which clearly was not valid by the way i don't think there's anything in the record workers where that half of substitute services s the copy of the paperwork by certified mail to the party to be served is not actually served at the place of residence that wasn't done or even attempted to be done as far as the record shows so and so there are personal service yes if a service isn't sufficient the orders board that that's our position your honor and i think i know there are some there is some case law and see just that in a taxi proceeding that you don't have to have personal jurisdiction so actually i think there is enough case law you cited that they are effectively holds they are the principle of basic due process notice an opportunity to be heard still wires that appropriate notice being young it may not be quite as as strict as the service summons but it's pretty doggone close to that and there are cases that hole that the failure to provide this personal jurisdiction matter which trumps stashed or stand i believe so your honor i believe so i think it's a matter of a really basic fairness in the form of due process in our system but i'm your baby right about this but what's troubling to headaches and as i said i think i saw cases suggesting that assuming the purchaser was bona fide and had no knowledge of any of this and yet there could be an argument made that you know the purchaser should said before that that throws a new wrinkle on the case and i don't i don't think it's i don't think you have to say if you want to say that in that case the tax burden the numerous or should be able to take that title free and