may place big court and my name is melanie morgan and i represent u s bank i'm continuing with the last argument the parent there is whether the question of whether representation court considered shadow canyon the question being well you know what what do we need to show to set aside a sale and the court of course rejected the restatement bright line twenty percent rule that it's generally  any so what is this  think we also have inconsistency is within the shadow canyon opinion itself with but no number eleven some of the examples that were identified as maybe right rising to the level of an irregularity sufficient to set aside the sale it's hard to see how those could ever impact the sales price itself such as a misrepresentation by the way and so because we have those inconsistent sees there's a lack of clarity on this point specifically with causation and that is a great reason for why this question should be certified so we can have clarity on what is the cause ation element for this product question or unfairness the reason president controlling right that's correct your honor is well we argue that shadow canyon of course is controlling it's published but within shadow canyon there's an inconsistency sales price can't be enough so you have to look at that unfair those sales price and it's a sliding scale the more and the greater disparity in the sales price the less unfair it is you need the more you know the if that's the standard that the causation is it must simply affect the sale then you know certainly it could affect the sale of beneficiary data trast is lulled into a false sense of security and there i want to quickly touch upon the reasons why essentially a mortgage protection clause which was the very particular question asked in this by this panel when their mortgage protection clause in and of itself on its can constitute unfairness and i would be sure that the question to that answer for certification is definitively no and it's for two reasons actually st the nevada supreme court has long recognized that mortgage protection clauses in c c and r s are uninfor because they violate one hundred and sixteen point zero one one zero four in numerous recent decisions unpublished although page twenty six of our brief we actually say all four of them in those decisions in nevada supreme court has well st that's a hypothetical question for this case because there isn't anything other than the mortgage protection clause but to answer your honor's question essentially what you're saying is if there's something more than the mortgage evidence was beyond the mortgage protection clause would have to have chilled bidding and that would have to be a bill that would have to been proven by the fall or just all th well i can't really speculate as to this in our ears i mean i would agree with mr hastings in the prior case that i don't really think there would ever be a scenario where they would actually chill bidding because in the context of a private letter  what do we what significance in this footnote eleven that is the subject of so much of our conversation what is the significance of the word representation and usually is representation doesn't them way of interpreting your resolve in the ambiguity of the carries yeah i mean in that circumstance you're talking about something other than a general representation like you know more that it doesn't i'm not disagreeing that anything put in the c c and r s you could potentially interpret as a representation what i'm saying is that no matter what circumstance you have whether it be something in the c c and r s or something outside the c c and r s like a separate letter in any event the bank would is there any basis in evidence yes everyone knew they were emperors well i don't know that anybody relied on this provision because nobody has ever and i've done a lot of these cases i have never seen anybody present evidence that they relied on the mortgage protection not no i think i think what they're really referring to is essentially a circumstance where there's fraud and that's the kind of representation they're talking about from a major way because in that circumstance there you know it would be conceivable that there would about a letter you would have to look at context the context of that letter when it was sent you know what actually was presented in that particular letter and then i also think you have to look at the particular entity you're sending it to so if it goes to a bank who never tendered never ever went to a foreclosure sales no matter what kind of notice or anything they were told then in my opinion that would not have chilled bidding because it definitely didn't nineteen and in that particular case they said that a party's subjective belief as to the effect of a foreclosure sale cannot alter their the sales actual legal effect so in other words even if the representation by the age to a in the letter is you're not going to be extinguished that published decision actually tells you that investor green court would not give weight to those letters anymore so that provides further clarification in that they're basically almost getting rid of the footnote in shadow canyon tells you that that representation can't have any force in effect at all in a camp possibly rise to level unfairness and for all the reasons i've discussed your honour's i think you have perfect grounds to affirm in this circumstance and there's definitely no grounds to reverse the lessers any other questions th no effect and if that's going to be the law then that needs to come from the nevada supreme court and that is why we are promoting this sort of this question should be certified because of all of the inconsistent season all of the things that we've discussed about how difficult it is to interpret but not eleven when really it just says what it says and your ways representation and that's what the c and so you know counsel said what they're really talking about is fraud but i don't see that language anywhere or that limitation anywhere and but no eleven it talks about irregularities that may rise to the level of fraud