that argument seems to suggest that once an attorney takes a representation of a client that that a truly based on the willingness to represent the client the implied representation that the attorney's capable of meeting the client's needs that that automatically triggers equitable stoppel in the event  things should go wrong it's now over saying this well that then you're really saying that there's something more than just the attorney client privilege that contrary equitable stoppel and i need to know what once you have this representation you have reliance i mean there are absolute sides of the same coin and where is the misrepresentation that occurred here other than silence and and what's your statute of limitations rather than the statute books you know i see a place i understand your particular argument with respect to this case and i have a i have a little respect for your argument because it doesn't the state shouldn't reposed doesn't seem to take into any injury until after the statute of repose had run you're basically saying i think that the statute or repose should not apply in this kind of a case now i case is like i can think of thousands of cases like including every case where a deed is allegedly but not in fact filed and nobody discovers that until many many years later which we often the case i want to take issue with a little bit of where you're at is that  on the plane is to demonstrate or at least suggest that there's a material question of fact that hasn't been answered and as just a skill set just put yourself in the position of the trial judge what's a trial judge who knows he can only take the record as it is it exists before him and if he says this is all i have in front of me you haven't demonstrated anything and at the contrary i absolutely agree with that and obviously had we do it to do all over again we would have asked that  said what should i expect at the conclusion of this transaction like it if he'd like it some sort of recording like and then if and if they don't get something that usually triggers  out this is a real estate transaction which it attempts to get the certificates of the property and there's the redemption period you know this and that there's not this isn't a case like the macintosh case where it's hey was a suit if we agree with your analysis of this case and take the facts as they are forget about inferences just the facts as they are that letter that he wrote where he admitted that he did not file the ok we have basically said your analysis the statute the repos would never apply in a legal malpractise action where the lawyer simply blew it and forgot about it forgot about that number that maybe thirty years later his negligence comes to light and you're saying that there ought to be an equitable there ought to be an equity act little bit of relief for somebody who's injured because of that you may be right but if that's the case then we have to abolish the statute led the play of the police the things have been taken care of but there was someone from the back that they could rely in the the only reason that i raise those cases about knows and realizes that the attorney committed no practice if he did and therefore is automatically charged with the duty to notify the client and if he fails to do so he says he never off the hook scary and it is scary it is very scary and that thing is that would apply in any state in any situation where you have a fiduciary relationship a physician patient relationship would be analogous just simply by virtue of the shared relationship plaintiffs argue the defendant must be charged with knowing and realizing that he cared and the fact and then didn't bring it to the client's attention stops him after the statute of repose is right that cannot in is not cannot be and is not the law and the diluted case the jackson jordan case those very cases of the hazard that hester case involve actions by the attorney that occurred after the case was dismissed this case involves no such evidence the only communication it's undisputed between my client and the plaintiffs occurred before the cause of action ever arose it was the initial agreement to record the deeds what if what if if what if the lots for his clients and therefore he should be bound by that lack of that lack of duty and he in fact at that point once he is presumed to have notice or should have know that a duty arises then he has to contact his client and if he doesn't stop all woe is triggered it you said it yourself justice yes facts had been developed that showed that this was a motion for summary judgment and there was no factual evidence presented by the plaintiffs to to even raise an inference that the defendant knew in fact as i point out my brief that the plaintiff filed the response to the motion admitting to the trial court and citing that february of zero eight letter saying mr mehlman himself didn't realize his error until the plainest brought it to his attention effects had been developed as you suggest we might have a whole different case record other than one telephone conversation before the cause of action arose where the attorney said i'll record the deeds undertook to do that then nothing the cause of action didn't even exist that for another couple of years until the redemption periods fire and then we have nothing after the cause of action arises until the statute of repose runs we have no evidence of any knowledge such as you suggest that there was only nothing so so had the planes all their lawyer in two thousand two thousand whatever that time period is that would fall within the stench of the post then we might have a different situation said not to worry about it all that we might we might and i say we might because in in math macintosh after the attorney failed to file the lawsuit took the client's call twice  enquire about the status of the case and the attorney didn't return the calls and the court how that wasn't enough to create an equitable stop now we're dealing with hypotheticals under the scenario you suggest we might have a different situation we might not we might be under mcintosh still in the same situation but either way we don't have that and that's the problem with this case as you suggested just a scale that this would eliminate the statute of repose because there would automatically be a presumption of knowledge second element of that critical stuff was knowledge that you're saying something false or there is there is some sort of superficial people thought that he had to know what he did and in the end we all know now that he didn't do everything he should have done and to that extent you can conclude that he knows that he didn't do everything he should have done by virtue of his letter i conferred by his letter but we all know he didn't record what he had to record as to both why it's the only recorded as the one well respectfully i disagree that there's a superficial appeal to that argument and the reason being because it is equally as feasible that exactly what the plaintiffs said happened in their breach of the trial were happ he forgot he didn't realize and that the this is the clear inference the clear evidence before the court is the letter in february of zero eight after the client's called and said hey the deed was recorded he said i'll look into it and he was he received an inquiry from the clients who investigated maybe the response to income as quickly as they like but within a couple of months he had sent them a letter knowledge that i think all of the elements here point to the conclusion that i think the court the heart sought decision that this court issued really i think is on point and there are actually two problems here one is that the motion was brought as a motion to reconsider not as a motion for that i suppose it was implied in there that they were seeking leave but it wasn't specially expressly requested the question is under hearts are does that get judged by the standards for a motion to reconsider or the more liberal standards under while the cademy either way the result should be the keep the prime element of prejudice and there is substantial overwhelming prejudice that would have happened at the trial court about this because what this complaint was an attempt to do was basically have a do over there was no explanation as to why did not know until they brought it to his attention and no explanation made to the trial court has to abide now we can allege otherwise in a new complaint when there were no facts to show why so i don't think the outcome would be any different here even if wrong that he did not file this isn't a case where there was one that he had to there were two separate dates here he knew enough to file he did in fact he took all the steps necessary to ensure that they had title that he knew at the time that we   and then he just failed to pick up their file again he didn't do any work on their filing suits he forgot you know it fell off his radar that's not the case here and he actually did take the right steps with regard to the other life issue in doing so i think that we can absolutely in this isn't a legal presumption the recipe for this is why we must presume that he knew what he was and was not doing what he why would you do that if that's one of the questions of i don't know why he did that did he have both certificates of tax we don't know it's not a