this is a landlord tenant case there's a lot of briefing on a lot of issues but i would like to begin with the proposition that my clients were the landlord in a commercial office building in scope they say filed this action to recover an excess of two and a half million dollars of rent from the pot corporation pursuant to potash his ten year lease which my clients contend was breached when they left after approximately five years of the ten year lease national bank it march thirty first of two thousand and then filed suit in this case in two thousand and one and that's what the trial court ruled on that and the other issue of standing of that crop british reaching the issue of absolute  client was a partnership that helped on the beneficial interest in the later years the issue raised by the defense was to respond to your question if the land is the land trustee met the national bank transfers there's that destroy standing when the beneficial holder of the claim and of the property is is still the same partnership that it was before nothing changed the  partnership and piety that's the contract sought to be enforced that contract was never assigned by american national bank to listen bank indeed when g m a c filed it the interest in the property was they were remained the owner of the property no foreclosure case had been filed on on april first two thousand and one i'm sorry in march first that this case was file in march first two thousand and one on april twenty first a month and a half later g mac files the foreclosure so when this action is file and the defense argued that standing is measured when the action is filed when this or in our brief where this court ruled that the beneficial owner of the land trust heads standing to sue for matters arising out of the management control and operation of of the property in did american national bank have title to this property when they filed suit in march of two thousand and one we offered an opposition a summary judgment a track search that said there was no offer in the summary judgment proceeding it's been nine years this case has been pending for nine years if you think that we should send it back for more just more discovery in this area to the see if your client american national bank owned title held title in this pursuant to the trust agreement we argued below we argued here that the agreement between american national and the harms row partnership gave harms road all the rights that this court referred to in the a's our case to manage control operate collect rents so to destroy each so so the fact that american national transferred something it several months after this suit was filed my criticism or counsel filed a motion to amend the complaint to add harm wrote as a party plaintiff which was allowed by the circuit court i may say was allowed in two thousand and one before the first reference that you pointed out in his brief in two thousand and two and was made in this case to stand in it was m case which was cited by the defense the standing continues even though there is a foreclosure until there is an actual judgment of foreclosure and a sheriff's justice rests in the c s m case ruled that in that case where the mortgage foreclosure action was filed first if the court is saying that is the spas that that there was already a default by august of two thousand mormon herm's road was was was joined as a private plane in the sea ascent case the mortgage foreclosure case was filed first after to reach then my questions don't really devolve the absolute assignment of friends at all because i think that's a huge radioactive question if you're asking us if we fight for you we'll have to address that we'll have to say whether or not illinois will standing is and in this state to a complaint or it's at the very least where they waited for the whole case it's waived as the that pleading and the at the very least so when they plead this to the first amended complain that you have no standing and not based on the assigning rights but based on whatever occurred in march thirty first of two thousand how every want to characterize it how is it done with when when you give no stand when when and he has no whole case and let's assume it's not wait for the whole case we're arguing that it was weight as to the initial complaint and that when it's first interposed as to the fourth amended complaint that standing is measured by the allegations defense is whether someone has a real interest in the controversy harms road had a real interest in the controversy or the beneficial or the building full of managing it collecting rents so they were at our problem party plaintiff mortgages and and my memory of it was that it was a may i reserve the remainder of my time thank you and if you bring up any new even affect and we've cited that the documents in our brief i haven't here if you want it there's a february twenty third two thousand notice to the players from the american the national indicating that as  and that in that regard the wonder who had the rights to macy never once came after punished for anywhere in the parties who really had these rights never once made a claim against and that we've been stuck in this case fighting to is not in the case for months later on august eighth two thousand and one the complaint was first amended to add harms wrote the first district's already ruling beagley you cannot amend to create standing in any event even if you could it doesn't matter because one bad day august eighth two thousand and one they have no rights those rights belong to the one one interesting point and it's kind of up and perhaps it's of intellectual interest but even if you were to would reject all that and say you know what we're going to let them we're going to allow them to amanda on august eighth even though they had no possession we're going to allow them to relate that even all of us as you can't they still as of april thirtieth had no direct or rights it's absolutely undisputed so the complaint would have to read that they were assigned those rights from the lender as of april thirtieth and the wonder sister sustained damages of his losses so even if you were to buy all their arguments you still have a case where they were attempting to proceed directly when they had only they knew that they we went on all our other arguments we have no direct leaves the lender had all those claims and april thirtieth of two thousand and one they got lead to a man they never did so what i'm suggesting to the court is there's there's a number of ways th there's no relation that even if you do relate that they have no direct rights so that it's very simple in that regard because i'd like to ask a question or two other issues in the case which you didn't get to all consequential the images of you there is nothing simple about what mr record stores just said at all there is no case in illinois that holds that attendant can avoid paying rent by raising the rates of a third party to the mortgage lender or by raising what they have raised in this case furthermore the lender did not go away after friday because the lender didn't view as its filings before judge hall stated that it had the right to go after pilot there it was a receiver appointed and the receiver is supposed to collect rents for both parties thereafter my client went to the mortgage company g belong not to the lender but to the harmes road partnership so there was no reason for the lender to pursue potash because the claim remained at all times before the foreclosure judgment in deed was issued in the possession of my client and i think it's very important to emphasize the fact that this is an illinois land trust an illinois land trust is a vehicle that is very popular here but as that is their case as the brights belong to the beneficial interest and the rights were exercised here before there was a foreclosure in judgment which this court found to be dispositive in the c s and case the rights were exercises in filing suit in joining herm's wrote as a party plaintiff and in signing the v f agreement that beneficial holder of the trust in the first pleading which was an even attack against any grounds by the defense in their belief that when we do we do that's what the public worked out because we have to enforce the law in so we don't honestly and honestly not just because published would devastate american national planning and why would what is the upside if there is a complaint in front of us and also there's no question that punish people are right through the time while they were physically present there is a large complaint about whether or not  they had met with the police requirements of they had asked for more than forty percent of the effort fifty seven thousand square feet instead there's a battle to be joined over that to be sure but i don't know if what you're says people versus one million one hundred twenty four thousand one hundred five u s currency one seventy seven hill illinois second three fourteen understanding issue that in that case the supreme court said that the primary focus of standing is whether party has a real interest in the outcome and they go on to say the doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons having no interest in a controversy from bringing the soup but it should not be an obstacle to the litigation of a valid claim whatever the nature and extent of this rent claim is in the court has seen what the rent claim is in the briefs we submitted herm's road had a valid rent cla at least crime of fish and this standing argument regarding a land trustee and the transfer of its business to another land trustee is should not defeat that claim that is an need there was a temporary order entered by judge hall which we have argued could be interpreted that the rent claims were made in my client that is in our brief judge has order is argued as not sending cannot be dispositive of the fraudster there was a fraud claim brought in this case on which summary judgment was entered the fraud claim was pleaded in the fourth amended complaint there was never a standing argument made claim there was a an argument made that you can't sue for fraud when you have a breach of contract remedy that's what the fence counsel argued to judge burt there's a breach of contract remedy here ergo you can't sue for fraud wrong if this court assuming i do endo says there is no contract remedy then then how the fraud claim is not affected by whatever ruling there is made on the standing under the contract claim we  submit that the there were questions of material fact on the fraud claim which shows that the manner in which this part as entity dealt with my clients was fraudulent that they can't pay their poor discussed cancelling the lease and then two weeks later they send a notice demanding fifty seven thousand square feet after the board voted to lease the office space seven evenings in in the north broke we argue that the way polish one about this was deceptive unfortunately and that is not controlled by whether american national bank owned because the fraud claim wasn't even pleaded initially in this case it wasn't pleaded till the fourth minute complaint one harms road is a pla