probably happened here you know one way or look i'm trying to find this out is this is look at the stamp on the yes or this is this is is it the judge's stampers of the court stamp you know and if it's the court stamp and it's obvious that to do any research but are you aware of any cases anywhere that talk about whether or not a foreclosure reaction is definitely not that's an issue that is my side right but i didn't cite any it is very unusual we've got a situation here throughout this case there's an incomplete record which falls in the burden of hell makes it difficult to state with certainty what occurred it makes the difficulty of asserting decide to determine what the court's findings were but i think that history to lose your honest question if you look at the file stamp i will tell you that my opinion is that it was stamped by the clerk there after they come back a week after the october sixth deadline which sucked up or thirteenth and that is when he has defaulted because he has not filed things down two shots at it he's been participating and then strangely appearance and notably he puts on his appearance he puts the same mattress where the property is located where he we believe he was served properly back in january two thousand that same address in burbank california he's a week so he's a he's a it's a can't follow the answer after due date without leap right so he files it without leaving after the due date but it's only a week late wouldn't we review they have under abuse of discretion standard whether he whether he should have been defaulted on that day civil case law that says that there's a preference that cases be the side of eric's and not side by way of procedural to be far off what's happening here is he is participating in proceedings he is then then the final orders entered in july two thousand and ten and then on the thirty day then they come in and argue my point is he was participating he knew what he was doing good you got a lawyer should have gotten one year they probably should have but in accident and actually one of his that he didn't get any benefit from the fact that he walked into court filed an answer and he was deep all the same day and sell he doesn't get to question the court level was whether we were a subsidiary of or or a bank and i look back as we were talking here and i looked at every library which is the first time that they responded to our statement that we are exempt because we are subsidiary subsidiary which exempts us from the collection at requirements and we argued and we present to the court that we were subsidiary we've obviously supplement that here with some judicial what we think our judicial  noticed but the plain fact is again we get back to the absence of records we don't have a hearing transcript we don't have a bystander's report we don't have or we don't have any evidence if you will or a record of what was actually put in front of the judge i wasn't counsel of the time but i can tell you that you know the orders you have magic language of such as you know oral argument was presented on dates that generated if they counsel was present they were for the court was fully advise again on the march twenty second cannot presume things based on what they think might happen if they did a complete record and without that record the doubts go against the appellant and we believe that sufficient evidence was presented and but the bottom line is without the specific record you specifically said i think he stopped making payments in september two thousand and nine and he taught us the living were going on for years and you know taxes insurance what have you but in his he answer he stayed he was that knowledge as to those  gotten a warrior then but frankly my guess is and again this is not the record because we don't have a complete record but i also know that his court rooms judges will typically if you know tell first the plaintiffs per se parties you might want to get a lawyer and he would have allowed this to be turned on whether he came up stairs or went downstairs i mean really because because if it's more it's if it's likely that if you want a procedure liggett went up stairs and handed it to the judge the voluntarily subject himself jurisdiction of the court he participated in the case his failure to show up at the notice the sale or respond anything else in the future that's unfortunately his obligation and his failure to act this has cost him here and we would argue that the record is clear that this should be affirmed and that you know for years and remanding for another opportunity doesn't make any characterize your motion on this say on august twelfth two thousand levon motions filed and defended me two arguments in the motion to quash one if it was not properly served and to the default court the only issues we consider are those that are before the court properly be question raised them you brief them and you comply with supreme court rule three forty one that's what we look at that's something that you may have argued in passing