asked how the court to consider five questions that we have three of how it works although the first two questions i believe are interrelated because they're basically standing issues but i was going to do is focus my discussion today on this the third consider a course that fail to make the distinction between a mortgage which is security for an underlying debt in the underlying debt itself oh i believe the second district fell into a different category because in its opinion the citi mortgage vs karylle which was decided last year clearly the more appreciated the distinction between debt and the security for the debt which is what the of years they're protected a spouse's interest historically the wife is interest in the property that could be protected against the debts incurred a judgment debts of the husband of the of the st valuable to the court because these are the same issues that several of the approaches streaks in this stage have had little ground with the c issues i feel that the length of the quote from the your this case was warranted because of the fact that this court could see the trying to understand what happened in this case legally relative to the implications of liability and i'm trying to get some idea of what it is what are the implications of her signature on the mortgage you claim not because she did decide you know and i think based on the the pro case based on   repeat what you just said yes absolutely ok so i think it's undisputed that any if there's a married couple and they borrow money and  one spouse borrows money there is nothing under the law that obligates both spouses to borrow money at the same time and given that one spouse in this case mr i can borrow money to purchase certain real property interest and then he use that money to pay for the real property interest that is a peaceable title in the property issue here where the parties were married and they held this property which you are attempting to snow you nor it to liquidate your judgment against a the spouse who is not good under the note is still allowed to pledge to grantee lean on his or her interest in real property even if that interest is by tennessee by the entire is to secure that debt obligation and i think if we look at the four cases that defendants rely on for the proposition that there must that every where but if i may because i believe just to go back to the the first step of defendant's analysis which is that in order for there to be  and in fact looking at the specific facts in each case reveals that is just much more simply in both cases there just was not any get at all into avoiding it was an instance where the record i believe was even on the clear to the supreme court but it was reviewing it but what was crystal clear was that prior to the morning she attempting to execute a power sale  the debt had been completely and totally extinguish so under that circumstance since the power of sale foreclosure is an alternative ready to just collecting on the money judgment there redemption back then was all sort of right and redemption is simply not possible if there was no debt because if the power sale is exercised and the property was so how could the mortgage either either it has to be raised as an affirmative defense otherwise it would cash the plaintiff where's or is considered a condition president precedent to the suit in which case  and then it becomes the defendant's obligation to raise it is it an affirmative defense we didn't get one of those notices what does the burden shifts back to you to respond to that and say yes we didn't here's information certain content to be included no none of that detail is included in the dean allegation the dean allegation is just general to include all the races that are or are to be given which which is the grace period it was under fifteen fifteen or two point made in their replies well there's a difference between admitting that notice was properly served or are properly given an waiver of the ready to receive that notice here we never argued that defendants that basically without showing us a copy of what it was what they may or may not claim that they said as far as agrees credos we have no way to determine whether the griz perno this was either timely or if you had complied with the station for any other reason there or