ok good early afternoon late morning your honor said in may it please the court my name is mindy sally here and myself along with i mean to morrissey my colleague you represent essay and could i shut down which who are the balance in this case and where here before the court today primarily the main issue on this appeal is what is the person to set forth by a notice of extension of redemption so there's a final redemption date that says that upon filing a petition for tax deed which then causes that timeframe to serve the notices and so the redemption expiration to acquire your proofs of appearing acquire an order for tax need and then take that order over to a county clerk's office who then has no choice but to issue the t according to the courts to reaction so in this case in this particular case what happened is is that the original retention date expired in october october th two thousand fifteen and the and there was other litigation of a twelve o three proceed proceeding happening but then what happened is that the orders language directly said the tw defects to the notices meaning that order should never issued in the st place the twelve o three proceeding was rejected on a technical detail that that we were not parties so the merits were never addressed in so during that come about well that sounded like a writ of mandamus to enforce an order for a tax because we didn't want we weren't attacking the order for tax deed we were seeing the clerk asked to deal with the order for tax s which is to issue the tax deed to castleman so after the appellate court oral arguments be contacted hamilton county assistant state's attorney's office and they agreed in they conferred with the county clerk and we deed on foregrounds and nancy they're paid or exempt that's one in two or it's fraud or they didn't name the party interested party in the publication notice now it's important here to know justice that when you state attorney is going to issue a sale an air refund and they have purchasers going to get their money back from the bid on the certificate it says in the air or any other order otherwise boy twenty  five of the property tax code this or it was absolutely correct and enterprises the cornelius kid this court's case you know a collateral attack on an order to recti state is in fact limited when you're attacking the order collaterally to two years and it's limited to the four crowns in twenty to forty five for the property tax code but that does not render it's a self executing provision that if it's not reported by this date one year from the one year deadline and one year from the final data retention it's void automatically as a matter of law to firstly then the twenty extended over to also avoid the order for tax paid in so it in our opinion after reading the property tax code and the effect of it the question is what does it matter if i because that's the whole point of two thousand two hundred and eighty five dollars if the text eats boy what does anything else matter it doesn't because it's without writing to reimbursement so it wouldn't matter if you had a legitimate or just as you would say that that one year expired you didn't report the tax state so those are the difference there between the twenty two being the twenty to eighty five and so be the case files under the and twenty two in two those are the only two occasions in order for tax to be boy but the taxes were paid before they were sold or they were so exact and they were so not supposed to be so nothing once the tax state is to clairvoyant there is no reason to reach back to the order because it all falls without right to reimbursement there is nothing left viable to anyone so the only two reasons that an order can be void would be for sections one dollar and two dollars in so this procedural issue then comes in with these cases where we have an example citi mortgage where in the in particular changed the petitioner was petitioning past two years two years well past two years after the order was entered and they filed a two count petition and they filed i count good morning my name is paul slocum and i represent the apple e's i apologize for my voice i don't have a scratchy voice i don't have coded i just woke up this morning like this on it i apologize in the clerk's office and says i want to file the city at that point when they talk about self executing that's what we're talking about that's when the clerk says you know what i'm not going to accept this deed because under two thousand two hundred and eighty five it's more than a year after the last date of redemption that's why they need a copy of the certified order when they do that so let me just st point that out in the self executing nature of it several things counsel said they they keep saying this tax d void that was the tax deed that was issued pursuant to the court in the underlying tax to proceed in that order is not being challenged today that was affirmed on appeal and not raised so we're left with a motion to vacate tax indeed on count one if you look at the actual allegations of count one they don't even say which tax deed they are seeking to avoid they don't mention which one so respectfully that does not sound in declaratory judgment in a minimum you've got at least identify the document you're seeking to have a declaration on that wasn't done here there was no declaratory judgment action the post court ruled a different way than what we argued i'm right so are they both both grounds are correct let me explain  nowhere two days after in order issuing the tax deed was issued so they didn't have standing order to twelve o three they did not have standing under fourteen no one under sections three  they go and file a mandamus case where we're not named in the case you may say well you knew about it why didn't you enter or yeah we did know about it we're talking about litigation that's power to do that of course they didn't is or anything in the record indicate they did an analysis to determine whether the original tax deed should be set aside of course they didn't they were the court quite frankly the clerk were told this is a clerical error that we need to reform and then the next thing i know i'm being hit over the head with an order that says the february t but then all of a sudden they use the mandamus court to get that somehow set aside in voided that's just without effect at all and it has no legal import because the mandamus court simply didn't have the power to do this and so you know council mentioned that they they followed the pleading examples of m b financial well i do the same i look at excalibur vs rockman brockman these council were involved and defended rocklin in that case i actually used their argument in this case guess what happened in excalibur versus rock say you can't do that you can't go outside this you've got to go to the court that issued the tax cheat and guess what the appellate court rightly correctly agreed that it can't be treated as a petition for merely for judgment in view of the statutory requirement that they got to be filed in the same proceeding and it kind of begs the question why why would they go to a mandamus court when we're still pending in the call a motion to avoid it there's no anchor to it there's no authority for you know again it's not a declaratory judgment action the appellate court is right t fourteen awarning deals with void orders it doesn't deal with void deeds and i think that's an important distinction i kind of grew counsel on is is that twenty to eighty five to speak in terms of weighting a deed in a sale it doesn't talk about fair that they're going to come in and say we're going to go get you will indeed void it which we know they can't do we're going to get a new deed we know the deeds more than a year from the order this case are saying we want to void it wasn't us resources i'm not accepting that's the remedy the reason we're in this whole bizarro world is because we have a situation where a party has even simulated him self into a case that it never had skinning for it was  thank you i would like to clear a few statements that were made by the record whatsoever and i want to be clear and dumping the property tax code language purchaser or ass and he does trial court enters in order for tax to keep that jurisdiction is only retained to enter orders for possession after that you've got thirty days on a twelve o three after that you're limited to coming in on a two so the clerk's role in the mandamus action was that the man davis the action was against the clerk it wasn't against an order for t x t it was an attacking in order it was saying clearly you have to do your job we are this order has to be enforced as this court road it and no one has a right to change the terms of this order so clearly do your job that was the mandamus action the nd thing is they want to go back to there and so the answer is this there is one tax the there is not three tax need the t x t that was entered to room was the board's voided by agreement the hamilton county clerk and the hamilton county state's attorney in entry of the one or the other in example to extend a notice to prevention the holder of the certificate can assign a certificate out so if i sign my suit to pick it out that doesn't mean i still have a legal right to go in an extended set forth is we do believe that twenty to eighty by language certificate or scuse me you so used to that certificate or indeed in th and a collateral attack on the order and the procedure come in and then it's clear in this court in sarkozy and in warren county an order is void if it lacks a personal jur the confusion of reading twenty to forty five to be a political to the tax deed and it's not it's the order you're challenging the circuit court's order and over here if you don't do these acts district their honorable associate judge after paul in up north we call it the search doctrine but nevertheless it was that your own search in what he said is it can sue is fine again it can be avoided in any court at any