redemption had occurred had survived the two thousand and eight construction lien foreclosure or by fox brothers the second holding that judge shapiro made was that a redemption had occurred and because of that really quick background you've got contiguous property you've got fifty three apartment units forty seven of which the issue was that's the disputed property who owns it with respect to the first holding by  shapiro i we believe that he violated the full faith and credit clause of the constitution and that he was required to give full faith and credit to the july twenty seventh two thousand and nine judgment of foreclosure by brothers motion for summary judgment as to priority over key bank control judge shapiro's decision but the second issue is probably the more definitely the more important one is was there redemption and you've got two issues here you've got a legal issue and a factual issue as to the legal issue it's twofold one is to the parties private parties today have the power to extend a court order redemption period and then the second issue is did they do it properly as the court is aware from the pleadings by the briefings by the parties there's a specific statute that boy and c l a five seventy point eleven twenty one subsection three and  second judges that stat the court show fix a period for redemption so which at shapiro i said was he in michigan like in all states in michigan there are two different ways to foreclose on a mortgage one way is involvement and what those cases say which makes a ton of sense is the parties can agree amongst themselves to extend the redemption period and in the context of a nontraditional foreclosure which is separately dealt with in a six hundred point thirty one hundred which deal with judicial foreclosures would it be possible for you to capture or why that makes a difference who's harmed when it's a judicial is there some party that's not getting notice who will be unfairly treated by virtue of the parties agreeing to extend or to redeem in this way yes and what we're doing it in without stets even citing the statute what's what is your point the point is you're talking about an interest in land you're talking about the clearly we're talking about real case who was harmed by this outside the court deal i believe who is harmed by outside the court to you is that it's been years of litigation to figure out who owns what and if the deal was struck for a different date that's a very simplified and i appreciate it and i think the parties who were harmed would be the issue would be creditors people either courts will apply the plain language of the statute the plain language of the statute is that the search shall fix it period for redemption the cases that were cited were based on where you don't ever as any court involvement so regard and i certainly understand as a policy matter that whether there is detrimental reliance or not in certain situations could be wrong that may very well be  in this case though you have a specific state statute which which we believe that the trial court judge was required to follow him to the extent that some sort of you know reliance reasons you know and basically the gist of it is the rug people got the deed the right people pay for that the it happened after the statutory period for there to been an actual redemption so you got a quick development it's not to town center flats and judge shapiro have roll that town center flats was the owner of the property the people who paid for it were not the people who were allowed to pay for it under a transfer from france brothers two days after the redemption period the court ordered redemption period of the regular reflect that at least some of the parties are for their attorneys were made an effort to redeem thought that there was some indication and court transcripts that have been cited testimony was to do the rent so i think even flaps that may be admitted that redemption the deadline ha trial there's also testimony consistent from mr g orange to that effect the reality is in the state court it was never an issue as to whether redemption occurred or not it didn't end up being an issue until in the twenty mixed issue of law and fact look to back it just a little bit here when the court is looking at the issues of the evidence in this case you have to filter how judge pirro saw this what happened in this case was in two thousand and nine there was a construction we foreclosure that we believe was redeemed the name on the construction lien claim was for an  of the debtor in our case that that own by this same same two individuals mr dio renzo and his sister from two thousand and seven through two thousand and sixteen two thousand did not did not schedule this property as its own property in its own bankruptcy in two thousand and fifteen when towns are feds filed they also noted that this property and it's in the bankruptcy schedules was their property the basic question and the filter here is why in a bankruptcy would a debtor seek to give away almost all of its property to an affiliate and i think judge shapiro read the evidence and the credibility of witnesses correctly questions of fact and i would just ask the court to bear that in mind when looking at whether judge shapiro could have had a clearer and clearer in his interpretation of the evidence based on  testimony and evidence in this trial judge pirro do determine that the property that the parties intended to redeem the demon from the foreclosure and didn't redeem it from the foreclosure on the issue that's reconsideration or judge friedman in the district court find any rationale or law case law warneke barring an extension of repaired for redemption some of the evidence in this case carefully weighed by judge greer also makes it very clear that redemption didn't even occur occur and the simple fact is that even if even if the courts find that there was no redemption here easy p key banks mortgage remain in place based on judge heroes interpretation of the foreclosure for several reasons all which are correct you have a good case of measure good that approves of this sort of discuss foreclosure by advertisement and there are cases that discuss foreclosure judicial foreclosure as well even the planing mill and lumber company versus van warmer which is one nine hundred ninety eight nish six forty eight at six fifty four that is a judicial foreclosure case which is analogous to this case there's really no difference in judicial foreclosure other than the fact that there's a construction l rather than a mortgage or do you trust them with the the procedures is basically the same in fact the construction lien act refers back to the just digital foreclosure act for execution process the redemption language in all three statutes is exactly the same in effect there's no difference the redemption the redemption is it is is is valid upon payment of the amount due and when that's paid the underlying deed foreclosure deed there's not there's no interest those are all the same under all that under all the foreclosure can buy advertisement cases it's clear the parties can contract to extend to extend the period and then complaining which is analogous case under judicial foreclosure in that case the holder of a sheriff steve excepted payment after the redemption deadline and passed and the michigan supreme court held that the redemption was valid despite the passage of the redemption deadline and it makes sense from a from a from a policy standpoint as well why that would be the case the only purpose of the construction lien act is to get the construction lead or paid and in this case it's especially clear and judge heroes noted this in his opinion lorenzo testified that the the proper underlying property is worth one point eight million dollars the construction lien or accepted thirty two thousand five hundred dollars even though it was owed more than that but all the construction we've attached to was thirty two thousand dollars and the parties continued to litigate over and over judgment money judgment for four years after that so you ask yourself if they couldn't have extended why would they additionally the construction lien statute has no bar a requirement for an order or approval of redemption and it makes sense because if the purpose of the statute is to get the construction lien or paid and hear the extension was from a friday to a monday to allow the debtor to get the money together to pay that it makes sense that the party should be able to free to do that and as judge cooke correctly pointed out who is harmed by this extension from a public policy standpoint i think mr battles that other creditors might be harmed by this however if you look at the michigan statute five seventy one one two one can you go down to subsection for the court addresses the rights of lien claimants after the foreclosure sale after redemption has has not occurred but if we're tempted occurs there is no addressing of the of the claims of creditors because the original foreclosure sale and it's as if it never happened yeah the sad suggest that's because the is so called redemption occurred through a bunch of different checks it read it work that party who was supposed them the money it's not their plan because they made a claim as if they had some good will right to this property in state court the case was dismissed out of  admission the parties the parties extended the redemption and i would just point that there was an ex parte roshon for relief from judgment the week filed the weekend and of the redemption redemption period expired on december second it was extended on december second to december fourth under similar third town center flats filed a motion in state court that said the redemption period has been extended to december fourth and that's dealer testimony in federal court in bankruptcy court on the sense that he stated that the purpose of the december fourth payment was to get the property back and the reason he wanted was to get the box brothers out of the picture and that's the record for zero eight and for fifteen when asked whether he had a could give any any reason for the conclusion that this was an arm's length transaction in other words fox brothers was selling it to him is that if  he could not and that's record of four six four zero seven and four fourteen four sixteen and when pressed on the issue mr didn't do the rounds or responded that the purpose of his filing the motion to determine property of the state as state was to get away from the people and to keep the property in his family simple and that makes sense that's why he filed this motion and that's why we're here today ms polish testified to his attorney she testified in bankruptcy court that the redemption date was extended and that they intended to accept the payment as a redemption additionally in the state court in two thousand and twelve and two thousand and ten i believe a letter the with a letter from miss polish to mr couper who was debtors counsel for the debtor testified at the hearing was always authorized to to act on behalf of the debtor that letter extended the redemption period that was entered accepted by the court entered into evidence mr polish testified at the hearing but that that did occur and th the transcript that we put into evidence was correct in numerous examples where the parties agreed that the redemption period was extended and now they're taking an opposite position  own not going to run through the entire construction lien statue how the process works but the final act in the construction when statute is under twenty one frame for the has to be an order of sale there was no order of sale in this case the reason there was no final order simple because there was redemption the had to be a final order to extinguish liens there has to be a final word or two to transfer title judge knowledge that this failure was further evidence of redemption and that's the record page one thousand and forty six and forty seven additionally the deed in this case indicates that no transfer taxes were paid and the register of deeds recorded it without transfer taxes being paid the deed is a page one thousand and forty four the relevant statute the repliers payment of transfer tax except when there is redemption is in c l to two hundred seventy five twenty mr basil noted that it is made out to an affiliate town center development going to quickly address why the deed was made out to towns or development instead of town center flats the property in question is one building that was originally part of a larger eight hundred acre acre tract the original owner of that property was town center development they transferred a small portion of that property to town center flats in two thousand and six my client's mortgage is two thousand and six the tax id for this property is still in the name of town center development the original notice of commencement for the condominium regime was in the name town center development the original claim of lien was in the name town center development and the original contracting party with  brothers was town center development in two thousand and seven to town so fox brothers simply proceeded with the names that they had and and because these were affiliates mr de lorenzo treated them interchangeably fuks brother simply dealt with the party whose name was on the tax man and that's in the record as well even if there was even if there was no redemption even if the deed did transfer the property to towns or development when the court finds a superior lien yes they're supposed to note that under eleven twenty one the qur'an one of five seventy but that's that's that's not mandatory that's it that's optional judge superior judge support specifically held the key banks mortgage was superior and that the courts failure to determine that that key bank had a superior interest was clearly in the banks mortgage was filed two years before the a foreclosure judgment that is not served within seven days is vacated and that's the fact of eighty eight michigan at eighteen page twenty one additionally is as i stated liens are not extinguished except when the sale final sale order is certified under eleven twenty one grand for a mic with the court to leasing inc vs joe see it's a reported decision but it was attached to pleading with respect to some of the statements made by the c p s counsel pursuant to five seventy point eleven twenty why there needs to be an order confirming sale redemption is not a transfer what happens is i owe you money for clothes on my property i paid i keep it it's not a transfer so the fact that on this quick claim deep and it's a deep it's not anything else the fact that this quick indeed it says that there's an excess transfer exception makes me personally makes me think that it was not something that was intended as redemption because if it was intended as a retention there was never it was never contemplated there would be a transfer the fact that it's there in my book to meet you when support to this quick lame deed was actually a transfer it is what it said it was it was a transfer of the property to town center development if it had  been because the redemption is not a transfer you know at the trial where the issue was there's a piece of paper there's this november december fourth two thousand i quit claim deed from this company called brothers to this company called town center development and the issue is ok what is it and so the e c peace position is oh it's evidence of a redemption our position is it is what it says it is it's really a transfer and it's what it says it is and then you say it's really a transfer it doesn't sound like it's peyton well it and the fact that it says there is and it was you don't have to pay taxes on the streets for is consistent with what i'm saying which is that it's a transfer if it's what  s so as a factual matter you have to wrestle with that now and that clearly and so you know there's a legal issue of can they do it and then there's the factual issue of did you know is this what happened and you know with amount of time you got here to redeem it statutory in this it doesn't say the court through in order to set deadlines and so in our situation you've got a statute clearly clearly got the statute five s good person to deal with and sent why don't we have oral argument today we can agree to whatever we want to agree to but when court intervention is required we need to go to court in order for the court to weigh in on it and in this situation you had you we're dealing with you know that's why we have a special prize that's why we have statute of frauds with respect to real real estate transactions so everyone can look at one piece of paper the four corners of the document to see what was transferred what wasn't transfer who has whatever rights in here you mean e c p a very well could have been harmed by this lack of paperwork as well because it bought the paper from key banc and it's you know if key bank head have showed up which would have been to have actually been a party to the stake will indication could have redeemed itself it could have made a protective advance it could have done all these things but for the same reason why typically with real estate transactions we require things to be in summit you may call the file case that for argument today