basically how things got to the point where they are where they're at now applying for a mortgage so you take a look at title insurance you take a look at how well the party that after the foreclosure actually completed a certain interest and so on so the mortgage banks tend do have procedures that they want to call to reduce reduce the risk of tho themselves you know the propriety of the transaction itself might like to address that because the process is for the winder to confirm title and title is confirmed based on what's available in the public record on and to the extent that the facts of the case are on clear or perhaps raise maybe just a little bit of a red flag then the lender has to take steps to protect that the circuit court found the facts to be not unclear as you believe and in fact the circuit court ruled in favor of the third side and so the question is why the circuit court that what what do you think was wrong in the circuit court's assessment of the case that resulted in a judgment against the circuit court's assessment of the case was incorrect when it came back on our motion to reconsider and found that the insufficient allegedly insufficiency of price was a fact that coupled with possession imputed inquiry nowadays because initially the trial court found that possession did not impute you notice and it wasn't until later that the court somehow found that that possession in conjunction with another fact so maybe this is one of those unique situations that you alluded to were a little while this case did not raise a red flag there is no nexus between the possession by a party who was never in the chain of title and the fact that routinely alice purportedly received inadequate consideration given the circumstances of the case we have to rely on the evidence that was before the court that was the court had to consider even if value was before the court the trial for improperly ignore the appraisal which showed that routinely alice received eighty six thousand dollars which then would negate the court's finding that inadequate consideration was received but aside from that even if that even if the consideration was in adequate illinois supreme court has held that the insufficiency of price is not a notice of the facts and i think i think that outcome that you've just described may be  the that was worn under different circumstances the circumstances in this case or the of a living environment might cause someone to reconsider that position i respectfully disagree that the circumstance of purported inadequacy of price would raise any concerns and me putting pressure actually i have been the last since the early eighteen hundreds said when someone is in possession of a piece of property that they're supposed to be an inquiry as to the right of the position to see where that inquiry would lead as and that in the last since the early eighteen hundreds  of possession changed because the tenants occupancy of possession at that point is not inconsistent with record ownership and the true inquiry here is where there are facts inconsistent with record ownership and possession in this case was not  is a trust that you don't have to make the increase and if there is not a trust you do say we want to understand how we should write this for you if we were in your favor so tell me how do we do that we say dead people better start to put all their property in trust in a sense you're arguing that the duty is substantially less that you don't have like justice gordon is a little big to say they there that that all you have to do is confirm that the property says and as far as connecting the the land trust to the person in possession of the property there's no d then let me clarify because what i'm saying is that the law as it exists today states that the duty the imputation of notice is different the duty only extends to understanding regarding the individual's possession that the lender relied on the status of title being placed in the trust and to the extent that the grandson was occupying the residency the understanding was that was by tendency the appraisal shows that the appraiser spoke to the seller owner which addresses the issue of the sufficiency of the prior price but that there is a notation there that the seller slash owner was spoken to so to the extent that the lender had notice of anything it was what was in the appraisal and it was not any representation by alice or the grandson or anybody else that alice had an interest in this simply be satisfied that an inquiry was made without regard to what that inquiry conveyed you had it investigated it would have only learned that the grandson was the tenant of the property and would have only been bound by what the tenants rights were there would have been no duty further and there was no representation or evidence in the public it's important that i clarify at least a few misstatements by counsel what the counsel said repeatedly is that the route in illinois is something about no duty to inquire ever that says a land trust vs an individual is any different the law in illinois is unequivocal from the early eighteen hundreds of stress this court indicated the right the duty to inquire to become a p f he wrote about the early to every case the error case is a bankruptcy case it is not an illinois case it is a bankruptcy case that bankruptcy case has absolutely no weight here it has no precedential value here but i think more importantly and i pointed this out my pre we can distill or stand on facts for instance that was a commercial establishment this is a residential establishment of miss alice one hundred eleventh and bishop on the south side of chicago this is not a commercial establishment and we don't need to distinguish erlich if the court when the court reads the for wrong case which counsel indicates all that decision the miller it said specifically and  who's in possession in this case boil down to  was well was this in a different lending environment and so forth and i submit unfortunately that hasn't changed because we read you hear of as base peppering a file with of them this contract it was obvious that there was a problem and then they had it they just didn't bother to put the data gathered because they're required to get a contract they never catch a will to see read it means and that's where he'll be here and fortunately executed just like net situation there is no deed and therefore subsequent purchasers i know that bonafide purchasers they take subject to whatever ownership rights  so in this case it comes back around to itself you know we could say and this case is easy certainly i think there have been two cases that we've cited that say the mortgage jack trumps the conveyances that i believe it it just doesn't exist ruthie only have a duty to record that property credit agreement  know better who needs ten thousand dollars to pay her real estate taxes gets that ten thousand dollars pays it back and let's she's taking advantage of three that is the purpose of the s t s you and them to suggest even though the there and then this is what comes back to the law in illinois its surface back on itself and that's what circus becker that's why this case is really so easy it circles back on itself because you hear the one illinois that talks about the duty  lee alice is asking the court to make a finding that would essentially abrogate the entire history of the recording laws of this state which would state that third party that purchasers could not rely on the public record as it stands because some deed in the history of time may have been intended as a mortgage and further asked the court to find that every purchaser must go back to every transaction prior to it in determining whether the sufficiency there was a sufficiency of price  property in trust and there's here's the other limiting factor that undercuts your you're you're opening the floodgates word of argument there was no mortgage on this property true at least initially can give its implicit insurer assurances that a future conveyance is good so in only the situation where there is no existing mortgage or the mortgage itself or or is i recorded you know i think that the situation we have here does the eat the the rule that may come out of this case really imply it doesn't apply in every way it doesn't apply in other circumstances because we have banks already involved there was no there was a preexisting mortgage by the land trust which is not at issue here because we're we're talking about the interest of alice and notice of interest alice or the lack of notice of interest alice and then on a subsequent mortgage made by us bank and us bank relied on the status of the public record in determining to other facts known to the bank in that case and even in that case the credit remanded it didn't even make a finding that the mortgagee wasn't a v f p it said go back to the trial court and look at this but in this case we don't have that to circumstances there was no affirmative representation by alice or her grandson despite the fact that there was an appraisal of the property there was nothing in the public record ours wasn't in possession of the property there are no totality of