e's that who are asking this court so your authority for claiming to be exemptions is actually not just those bankruptcy cases which are split in this case the issue is what title it she heavy in august two thousand and eight when she's claiming these exemption she had a one third interest in the property she had her husband's homestead exemption those with titles back in the spring but but she never abandoned property and that was the property so found that there was no abandonment of the property it was her rest and she didn't have another rest she went to to live with a relative during the gladys rancher is claiming her home that exemption she had title for the property and she had but virtue of the fact that she had a one third interest in the property and she had her husband's  the surviving spouse would work which which is going to have to be fixed at least ten thousand dollars so that makes the liabilities of this state one hundred eighty thousand dollars content they are your honor and i chapman versus richie in illinois supreme court cases cited in our brief is directly on point on this issue there are the surviving spouse mrs chapman renounced her husband remaining interest in the property here it's the same situation except that mr fancher is will didn't provide for miss fancher to receive any interest in the property the property was to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the children so it's the with the other individuals who have now an interest in that same property here the beneficiaries have an interest in th someone might have an interest in property if a surviving titled spouse dies but that's that wasn't the issue before that court and so i would assume that the court wasn't briefed on this issue  the court there never had to consider the implication of i'm section i know two and the chapman case which says you can't assert these exemptions at all against the ten are they in fact asserting it against the content of yes your honor because because at this point as i said earlier the proposed distribution is still pending in front of the trial court now the other thing is fancher was not entitled to a homestead in her own right because she had no formalized interest in the property and that's true so you can see if in fact she had a formal title not think it is that crystal clear i think that every road is the only case where they said they did allow somebody to claim both exemptions but as always the person that's to meet the requirements under so the homestead exemption means something different in bankruptcy than those under probate i think that's a possibility on and i would point out that most of the cases here that we're looking at are bankruptcy cases five hundred a piece you could get fifteen thousand total that's the intent of the original law but what has happened is is there were some there was a court case recent court case that specifically said that they that it was believed that the legislature had to clear that provision up so when it says it that's fifteen thousand per household so if it's fifteen thousand per household back then it's thirty thousand now it's musicians so are you saying that under this provision when a that one person can get to simpson's i think your other you know the only case that says a very loud that was brought up no other case has allowed that and i think it's a result that's not completely logical but w the statute says is that any individual having an ownership interest and still residing on the property can claim an exemption under section one no one  been addressed and so there is no direct case on really on the ropes case would be the closest to that and i think that when the legislature created this i mean n was the exemption that would continue for the surviving spouse they would automatically get that exemption and that should be it but i saw under that circumstance the fifteen thousand evaporate she doesn't care she hears the right to her fifteen thousand disappears i think that should be the result i think that she should have one for soviet life and if he's alive she gets thirty two to get thirty thousand apiece did she get as you said i mean this is sort of an old law it's meant to protect the surviving spouse who maybe didn't have any and ownership interest in the property from creditors so she gets her exemption she gets her protection from creditors already under section one  i don't see anywhere where it takes away her only right it says that it shall continue for the benefit of the surviving spouse so it should continue for a surviving spouse and i guess i think that at the time it was until a judge has a d d issue but you can say these other folks are coached hands and they haven't had any of that happen either all they have is  tenants in the sense that they also have an interest in the property i'm in i'm not denying them this banter has an interest in the property is just an idle that would allow her to her own exemption or section one no one but the rest of the beneficiaries also have an interest in th issue of whether you know she owned property or is entitled to section or one by virtue of her marriage i think that's already been decided and the courts have held no that just ownership just being married to somebody who owns property is not sufficient it's not a rightful  code test and so yes they are protests that in her right to claim a homestead exemption and property of her husband who own property fully prior to his death