are actions against me there were several actions that were taken against me by the court that are against the law which i am appealing today as an initial not are the district court should not have a opportunity to file your answer you or any motion that you s you didn't make any kind of request until at least a couple of weeks after the the judge lewis's order with regard to the virgin islands and requested a leave to file response of pleading out of time  the court ruled that the october nd order did not apply to your case so in order for us to grant you relief one of the things that you have to persuade us about is that are told for that to continue in order should apply to your case during a twenty four hour curfew after the most devastating hurricane suggest destroyed st thomas and the nd most devastating hurricane decides when thomas will be hitting the island six days after my september th amended plea and order from the chief judge says that that leads one to believe that the order with regard to extensions applies to in court appearances because obviously none of the courthouses were up and running but that the electronic filing system was up and running that there was internet allowing electronic filing on october  thousand and seventeen when this action was fil and so my question was i mean at least as i understand mortgage agreements are says notion of you know you have to make payments by a certain point in time if you don't make payments and you go into default and and then there are certain what they call you know celebration tricks the whole amount per can you get back to making regularly scheduled payments and there's and that depends on the details of the individual graham and most agreements like the one here have a remedy for closure if you're in default in the you know you can't pay the full amount you can't cure the acceleration provisions and stuff like this and so my question goes to a look at the time that they started were you were had to be two units and ordered to get the side of the loan that i needed so i needed to reverse all of my planning in the construction and build the nd one in an apartment on the well a level  and again i was told when i received occupancy that loan with go over to a permanent fix mortgage but that was that was that that was my rigel atlee promise and taken away so what in essence that that basically stated that think you know whatever they did in the past or whatever they did in the future they were not responsible for but i was under duress and i i was hoping i would get through this construction and i don't feel that i had a choice but to sign it and again i was under extreme emotional and mental duress and seeing a therapist  what the bank had does for me up to that point was so stressful i can't even describe it well it really doesn't go by the attorney formally making the present patient over a period of find the period of time and look for the question that the court  would you have another period of time to answer the question and would that that's the way in which you'll be able to let us know what your thoughts are a filed then finally on august rd another attorney entered in the parents all the with turning from the same law firm by the way and asked for an additional twenty four hours to file the answer which was permit it until an answer was finally filed on august th which was nearly six months after the answer would originally have been to her and so it is not accurate that there was only twenty four hours provided for the attorneys who were representing dr murray to put together an answer and they had three months to do so and they never provided any explanation for why when the answer was filed on august rd they did not simply include whatever counterclaims they wanted to file at that time the nd thing i wanted to clear up is  event regarding electronic access which your honour's had asked about documents media lawyers a lot of firm a poll nagi did indeed have damage to their office but they immediately relocated to an office inside a fully functioning building and in fact filed a notice with the court indicating that there are had been up and running since october the st of two thousand and seventeen although in response to our opposition to the motion for leave to have additional time to file counter claims we pointed out that that same lot of firm filed pleadings in other cases in september of two thousand and seventeen so obviously they had access to the filed a complaint initiating a new action on september th two thousand and seventeen electronically with the district court the october birth date there were a couple of different note and then they filed a notice indicating their new through october th really had nothing to do with the ability to meet the filing deadline for various matters governed by the federal rules of civil procedure and that is exactly what the magistrate held and what the district court  firmed but yeah i think the argument that that these particular attorneys were unable to file due to the storm is not accurate and in fact they did not make that argument and that's probably why they also obviously were aware that they were out of time on the counter claims because they did not file a notice of the filing of an independent thing as of right which they could have gotten if they were within the time time they filed a motion for already well i just want to add i want to do with dread inaccurate that were discussed earlier but the whole thing is actually irrelevant your honor because the counter claims which we did going to counter claims one was for an alleged violation of the unfair trade practices act and one was for fraudulent documents they had banded the unfair trade practices act argument in their opposition to summary judgment although they could have can answer your honor's question there were i would say the trial management order that may st as a date for a minute to pleading the st appearance by counsel was july th the court explaining the reason for the issue of the counterclaims but i would say the nd most important order would be the order that was entered denying the motion for reconsideration allegation that st thank the lady in the st approval for releasing construction funds and an argument that the court could follow certain cases out of texas a nontraditional for closure arguments including most specifically the fact that the court arguments were barred by both the statute of limitations and ratification which is under the law of the virgin been waived by the signing of the document and waived because he then excepted one million dollars in loan proceeds were also barred by the statute of limitations all of the arguments generally i think i and let me know if you disagree with this statement but generally a notice of appeal cannot create a court order now it gets being appealed not sometimes you can create the actual filing of the judgment but generally you can't file a motion and then say i'm going to appeal whatever the order is you don't get an opportunity to predate the filing of a court order with your notice of appeal now here the notice of appeal was filed before the court order on the motion to re consider do you think that thought filing that that  motion for reconsideration is within our appellate jurisdiction since there was no subsequent notice of appeal filed and it doesn't seem to fit into the lift of motions  under federal law for a for that specifically says will be motions get different treatment the motions for reconsideration get that different treatment so do you think so so all that's to go forward and proceed with the jury and sale of the property no no i understand that that's what you are my only question is is there a case for appeal time period there's a separate document  this case with long time period between one and the other it created a lot of procedural confusion as to when the deal became kindly and whether a nd notice of appeal was necessary and in fact we had filed a motion indicating that we believe the nd notice of appeal was required in order for the appeal to proceed after the judgments were finally entered and that never happened and so i agree that there is a question there  i think ultimately the problem i was raising regarding the motion for reconsideration is that most of the issues raised by dr meant he and her brief are issues that were never raised prior to the summary judgment order or judgment being entered and so therefore aren't properly before the court regardless because they were never raised but fortunately centered reconsideration that there were no no no let me all filed after that decision finally came out resolving that motion so so so what that means is if i understand your computer correctly yes well because there might not have been a separate judgment filed under  gave the defendant additional time to possibly file a notice what pili do anything like that but her motion for reconsideration was the order that there was all that was reconsideration was resolved and therefore you feel from the original judgment was now able to proceed there should have been a nd notice that the deal from the denial of reconsideration and that never happened and it is going to like this  kind of like a civil procedure on while we are whole fifteen yeah and this whole case kind of the civil procedure nightmare and tell you the truth your honor my client has asked me frequently why did this race summary judgment and nothing that has arisen and then presented and i feel changes that and i also would like to point out that in addition to all of the other facts in the response to our motion for summary judgment there never so there was never a proper sense of the motion for summary judgment on any of these factual issues and there's nothing in the record below you support any of them actually in a proper way and again there were several lawyers involved a lot of and so they did failure to provide a proper affidavit and comply with the rule fifty six there's no excuse for that and the fact of the matter is this b there was the bank said no all of this was in the affidavit in support of our motion for summary judgment and at the time that we filed the action no payment had been made at all for months and months and months and the thirteen and twenty four came and sorry they cared and so the only injustice here your honor is that this has drifted on for so long with no proper resolution the banks followed all the rules and gave every possible consideration to the borrower provided appropriate ever and evidence to the court of everything along the way complied with every order and summary judgment was properly inflated based upon the uncontested well there is no proof that those misrepresentations happened and you know it's very difficult to address them and i would argue that the court can't even consider them their their alleged oral statements made regarding a mortgage loan and so there they would violate the statute of frauds and they were not raised as a defense and still more than five or six years after the fact and there barred by the statute of limitations and he accepted the entire one million dollars which was all dispersed and so the agreement was ratified i don't know whether some loan officer said something that documents interpreted in the way he says it's impossible to know twenty years later someone sues them you know twenty years later there's really no special invitation to defend so if this were properly i don't know that there's a statute of limitations issue well that's the law of the virgin islands with respect to a count  their gratification and the lack of evidence because remember the fraud defenses that he's raising are based entirely on an unsworn statement there is nothing in writing and no discovery was done  although he had three lawyers who could have done it there isn't a single witness that backs up to the alleged fraud so there's there's basically there is no evidence that the district court could have relied upon and in fact documents  statements indicate that her version of fraud is just that he thought he was going to get better loan terms and therefore made the decision to spend money on building her house if unclear to me what the fraud even is because he was given a loan he was given deferments he was given clear documents to sign and and he signed them think it's a complete red herring because it had nothing to do with what happened in this case the court still considered dr he's main defense which was which was her claim that he was somehow either fractionally induced or under economic threat and the district court even considered them to fight the fact that there was no affidavit just an unsworn statement which frankly was more consideration than those defenses deserved the court could simply have rejected them under rule fifty six dollars and said if they have which again never claimed their side completion of the property