created a valid lien against the proper shop with proper cholly the second main issue is whether the second memorandum of judgment created a lien against robert charley property which are his interest in that property and our point is that night there anything about bush on this bankruptcy nor anything about his having passed away took that lean away or interfered with that valid mean the third main point is memorandum and i don't understand why as you point out the second memorandum wasn't effective against the jolly estate what was what was the reasoning for granting a motion to dismiss related to a bankruptcy that the jolliest it had nothing to do and that five point your honor is that that second memorandum enough itself even if it weren't a revival i argued before the circuit court and when we did finish argument he the court asked questions but it did not give it a statement as to why we asked the judge to let me let me ask you did did he indicate that asked to be the defendant means that the bankruptcy ended before he died right before any interest that he may have had passed to the defendant so how does the bankruptcy transactor case at all impact joll with respect to that issue since we're on that issue i'll address the rest of what i'd like to address first that lean not only was not destroyed because of the automated stagg that that issue is just simply irrelevant it's not appropriate it can attach to some potential interest maybe he'll die someday and i might have write survivorship but beyond that the second i get a sense that there's some sort of suggestion in the circuit court that you get one bite at the memory of them and if you fall short of complying with all the requirements to have a valid number and done that you don't get a second opportunity to correct those and that's simply not true because the second memorandum on its own could stand as a memorandum of judgment under the twelve one a one statute the need never have been anything they could have just provided the judgment suddenly filed this document which i'm calling second memorandum that in a nutshell of itself would have created a lien no matter what happened the other issue here is that the joint deal but i have let me let me ask you this question first i don't understand why do you think that just because you lost the second time you have all right in the course of that second appeal to challenge what occurred in the meet any showing at all except for argument is there a new case they came down that says that memorandums of judgment don't have to strictly comply with all the requirements now your hon it is a memorandum of judgment broadcast to the world and if you don't have a right you don't get any benefit from from that i don't think that that should be corrected is under the current opinion well why did you do broadcasting to the that right let me ask you this regarding the stop the question what if what if you know because you claim that she made a security group claims assertion in her bankruptcy p what if that had been a valid assertion would you have any position to take now if that had been a veil with assertion then there wouldn't be an ability for the first opinion to have even occurred right let let well forget the first opinion what a bankruptcy if it's not been otherwise affected the trustee hasn't sold the property if the need hasn't been voided for instance because it appears an exemption so that's that was my question i don't understand how what wouldst what's going on with the city banks or the first  is there a claim of a secured levy against individual applying for bankruptcy and isn't that exactly what your client did he secured leave against the property but whether or not it was it was up held it's still a good faith assertion not her car that i did an entity that claims to have been doing and isn't that exactly what get i practiced bankruptcy law fight a bit and when i represent that are you always make sure that you put in contingent on liquidators you that if you really thought there's any dispute whatsoever and given that your practice got bankruptcy law and given that you received  notice given that you had all this information whether or not you had an obligation to go into bankruptcy court you certainly could have done that but you could have it could have objected to the classification that she placed this lien under client if we find that the second memorandum was valid against the jolliest the having no in her interaction with the bankruptcy and i'll hold everything up the last three years the real estate  that the property may have decreased in value so there may be an issue there as well that would make a difference as to whether both of their leans right to the extent that that the value that the real estate has less value now would have less value owner has to comply with all the out of obligation it has under that time and has to pay citibank right it has to pay the first mortgage happens regarding real estate as well because i could couldn't he have filed a claim against the estate if it the state had you know cash had liquid assets that he could  cases and our brief make it clear that the joint tenancy doesn't get destroyed until there's an actual effective transfer of title trustee signed something that is of the owner and in fact what happens if in the in the first scenario if towards peers that we do i find today as we stand here so you have another memorandum of judgment recorded knocked over of all five that does contain all necessary requirements that should be effective against dolly under the a stop all argument there is no requirement that it be up to leaky why the requirement is that they take two contrary positions that there is benefit to the person for taking those contrary positions to the detriment of another party the five elements as we subsequent based on what she does later on but what she does later on is simply in line with the decision that we made in the first and the unlikely tory people what's not in a line in accordance with it it isn't that the opinion came down and then she made that if there was a wrong date in a memorandum judgment it created a lien to not have been created that is the first time that has had been argued and and in print before any of heloc or any of the spring for an illinois so there was no way for ninety eight had any gas that perhaps his name was going to later be found invalid so not thought it was invalid or thought there was some reason for it she could have marked it is disputed but my point is that even if she didn't do that to