system seems to have been a fairly simple one but it looks like they take the data from these people from whom they buy the jat they look to see what's the recorded last payment day their system runs its neck to see if that's more than five years ago if it is then it's understood to be out of statute of limitations can't go forward if it's not they move ahead it's a pretty dig into the details of that last payment date was the check balanced it was just the right amount whatever else might be questions about it but i've certainly seen worse yet quite they do seem to have a system in the state court judge rules in your client's favor and that's that but i think what the judge is trying to say is that this system of checking last payment date against the time clock for th they are they're comparing last payment date with date minus five years and if it was if there's been a six year time span then apparently they don't try to collect the debt the problem for defendant is that the procedures have to be adapted to prevent the violation asserted they somehow have to prevent the filing of stale claims here and why don't there's procedures in a lot of cases really these procedures do exactly that not in not in this case in this case defense procedures will never catch a bad date of last payment because there's only blind reliance on that date of last payment and there's a disregard of other contrary information provided at the same time  identity of numbers wound up being there those reasons would be speculative there's nothing in the record to support that any reasonable inference can be made that for example at the fed it makes gives an example i believe that's the creditor continued to charge interest that's just nonsensical because according to schedule one clearly no interest that says on schedule one there's no interest to be imposed there was a charge off date and then there was a sale date which was a year or two exception doesn't require the kind of degree of perfection that you seem to be demanding it just requires regular orderly procedures in place not that they're going to succeed every time and it seems to me when the issue is of the information provided so me ask you this do you happen to know this might just be impossible but how how often attempted payments bounce or you know there's there's an apparent payment collectors policy but i'm wondering in general maybe somebody other words you seem to think there's a better policy out there that somebody could have and i'm one of course as i was reading these briefs so thinking sure i mean you could you could have an in de have a disclaimer of the accuracy of the information mccollough just as we have in this case that the retainer language is almost identical plus in that case the defendant had information in its possession contrary to the ada less payments in other words information that had a duty to at least review what you have but it's by design the defendant ignores country information the only policy is to look at one data point if that data point is wrong garbage in garbage out you will always  not be doing anything with it and after you know forty five every night you know now it's five years out and so you would delete it from the system then your checking every night as they age out the scribe is automatically checking seems like the last payment date would be july sixteenth not june thirtieth making up for the bounced payment i guess i'm confused your honor by what you're referring to it was clear july well it's a hypothetical is that it if that in fact occurred yes whatever the next payment date that he had a time just saying your hypothetical doesn't answer the question how could you have all these numbers game i think it is if i make it more specific the charge o not a red flag so that being the evidence in the record i don't think that the district court was in error finding that the bonafide air defense applied i'm sorry is this rare to have this bounce payment he ever come across a problem now counsel wants to make it seem that because the system is not designed to catch it as you're stating that the scrub is not designed to match the two numbers and see if there's an issue it does come up when they start in fact and i understand that this doesn't necessarily go to what they knew at the time of the charge collection activity but the plaintiff even called after the election lawsuit was filed and mentioned that he made a payment in that and then out that settled the account so even then the client had no reason to believe that this was a bounce payment and the when they first became i guess i'm notice that this might be a problem they still had to conduct an independent investigation i surprising are unreasonable and anyway given that they're not the originator of this data to hold otherwise would require death purchasers such independently verify each and every entry on account information mister your honor asks whether or not this occurrence is rare and the point that i was trying to make is we don't know because it will never be caught according to defense policy as i say garbage in garbage out a considered professional judgment consider professional judgment cannot cannot be made when information that is readily available is ignored by design by a matter of policy because the only policy or only unwritten policy  policy where the defendant is supposed to dismiss all litigation pending or plant and there's also concurrent policy that defendant only dismisses nine pending litigation the policies themselves don't mesh