gross disparity in the market in the parties bargaining positions or capacity and we actually have that here but over the past half century the standard has evolved to the point where now motions to vacate agreed orders are judged under the same standards that apply to two fourteen zero one both sions and that means that they invoke the equitable powers of the trial court and they should be granted to prevent injustice now in this case based on her search and that she had misunderstood the orders material terms the trial court accepted this is certain nevertheless it denied her motion to vacate on the grounds that she had i leave at lease agreement by playing loud music and by allowing into her building a person who had been previously part these allegations were raised for the first time at the hearing i miss king's motion of a k of the trial the trial court's decision to deny her motion once reversal for two reasons first by relying on allegations that have been raised for the first time at the hearing on the motion to vacate the trial court deprives risking of due process violated her rights under the rules and regulations governing her subsidized tenancy and committed reversible error second risking satisfy the standard for vacating agreed orders and with respect to the trial court's legal error the trial court explicitly stated that it would have granted miss king's motion of a cake but for the allegations that were raised for the first time of the hearing of her motion there was not your honor but your honor i don't think that would have mattered because it was entirely inappropriate to consider matters that were not set forth in the terminations notice upon which the underlying forceful action was based and that's continuance in order to prepare for those matters towards the end of the hearing on the motion of a case there was a request for time to respond to some of those allegations but that's after they're already in testimony on these allegations and that was inappropriate because these allegations had been sprung on this came out the hearing on the motion and they had nothing to do with her most vacate she was facing eviction for nonpayment of rent and she was arguing that  not understand the terms of the agreed order she sa the trial court's decision to rely on these new allegations violated due process and they also violated the rules and regulations governing this cane's subsidized tenancy he's regulations could not be clear a state that if pla wants to evict a tenant and plaintiff must first issue a written terminations notice and it must set forth in this terminations notice every allegation upon which it will rely at trial furthermore plaintiff is restricted to relying a trial on the allegations in this in this notice when plaintiffs raised new allegations miss king was taken completely by surprise she had no a fancy notice of these allegations and therefore no opportunity to present a defense to these allegations m object to these allegations at the hearing of her motion of a day and in its response brief plaintiffs even concedes that these new allegations were not relevant to miss king's motion appellate court may uphold the trial court's decision on any grounds that appear in the record but no such grounds exist and this is why miss king satisfied the standard it's governed by the laws of contract and it is axiomatic that a contract is not enforceable unless it reflects a meeting of the mind the agreed order in this case did not reflect miscarries reasonable understanding of her agreement with plaintiff she thought that she was signing a paid stay order and that was a reasonable belief based on previous conversations that she had had with the property manager when she got determination notice in this case demanding less than two hundred dollars and r she went to a property manager she disputed the fact that she owned this ranch but the property manager told her you can stay if you pay the rent demanded plus our court cost said miss things assertion was essentially irrelevant i'm quoting from the record now the trial court said you know in virtually ninety percent of cases where there's an agreement one side is generally an attorney and one side as per se and it's very often that somebody doesn't risk procedurally unconscionable because the circumstances surrounding its entry demonstrate that mr kane did not have a meaningful opportunity to understand the actual material terms of the wor seven factors that demonstrate this first miss king was prez say second the plaintiff is represented by counsel now those two factors are never enough by themselves to demonstrate that  this agreement well standing before the bench and therefore did not have an opportunity to read it if she had an opportunity to read this order it is unlikely that she would have understood its terms because it was a form order that was type of conversation or some type of understanding for the word agreed to appear on your own that i don't think the disputing that that actually existed prior that's correct we do not dispute the fact that there was a purportedly agreed order that the order has the word agreed on it the order and then you know that it was an agreed order yes so the height of the drive to the understanding there was going to be an agreed order this came came to cork and based on the conversations with the property manager believed that that's been developed with regard to two thirteen one or should we be looking to two fourteen on one because it's an agreed or well that's the sure that has he said something with regard to the early that's correct your honor as i standard what the court stated is that now the standard is identical to the one that governs two fourteen zero one motions therefore the movement must show that vacating the agreed order is necessary to prevent injustice the movement must also establish that she has meritorious defenses to the underlying actions so that vacating the agreed order will not be useless act really delays the inevitable so you would agree then that because we're dealing with an agreed order the support at least we were there that the standard that we should be applying is somewhat higher than ordinarily would be applied to thirty one situation she paid the disputed amounts plaintiff would allow her to preserve her tendency that was her understanding and the trial court accepted that assertion the trial court at no point challenged her credibility on that issue in this case mrs king is not seeking a dismissal of the forceful action she is not seeking a judgement in her favor she is merely seeking an opportunity to proceed to a trial on the merits and present initial case but on the motion to vacate there was a transcript and this is the fourth they are in the questioning him and the discussions between the parties and the lawyers and the judge and the way she told her she she could not this was a no deals and that she had a right and this was admitted that she had a right to continue the case and get a boy of the defendant didn't that do declining and they were they they had an agreement giving her till some time in may and may to move based stuff they stepped up before the judge in this time said we haven't agreed order and the judge address and the judge in these cases or always addresses the from the defense the time was up on may fifteenth and on two days later on i believe it was may seventeenth a motion to vacate was followed the ordinarily if we have an agreement we accept that the defendant did sign the agreed order before the judge when it was entered and the judge says generally if there's an agreed order we accept it and then the judge said of but i want to affect he said i want to do more i want to get into the vietnam bit and he got into the bay at my home where the defendant said that i talked to the manager and she said if i paid the to the attorney i will take your month that was on that was on march not appear only well she didn't offer the money and it was sent to the attorney about april first and it was filed by any real third so when it was filed to me on a tour gave the instruction i don't want the money i want her to move it's a no heels and so the us one here and so when we got to court it was there was no more offer boat exercising just discretion the trousers plainly stated based on everything that i've heard ordinarily i would vacate this order and set the matter for trial but because of these other problems that are occurring in the in the unit i'm not going to do that now isn't there abuse of discretion if since there was no allegations in the in the complaint nothing in the notice about the fact that she was being brought to court with regard to problems of the unit should any of that lease continue the case and given them an opportunity to marshal evidence with regard to that or force them to amend the complaint at least include those allegations you put them in the with then if that's the case if the basis of the five day notice is not payment of rent and the judge said i'm deciding this and circumstances other than nine payment of rent isn't that an abuse of discretion i would say it's a why they won't take the rent if there was a decent reason cause he was doing more it's a that will court to win more than in court ok so this is what he did it can't help but that this is what he did so he he asked about why if they ever said that they would take it and they  emitted from whatever she said sometimes i love music late at night and the judge concluded that wasn't the reason for the fiction but he was trying to make an exception to an agreed order and that's what he was looking to do but then he found he found something that maybe he shouldn't make an exception that was his decision he was trying he thinks he said in the transcript i have a job to do and i was supposed to do the right job maybe he's foolish and doesn't and we have i mean i've been doing this happens a lot of times that you know they go behind and that's just the way it is and you know what it's the way it should be so but the problem is is that we're fac i didn't know that's always a problem and i was you know i understand but this lawyer said to her and old side the woman then tonight this woman said to her and because she couldn't make a deal pay the rent if you pay your seder if you don't you don't she couldn't make the at the altar and so she said to her if you want to get a continuance to get a lawyer and it's not said by lawyers often you can't you can because i've got no discretion here and she didn't she was looking she was looking for time and when she stepped before the judge there was a time and the agreement before it was signed in she says i want more time correct but we're the place to do it and i and i i further say here fully you know the i further say the judge also had to determine credibility ok and we talk about that she put in the paper to reduce or rather ok yeah they said one of the conditions didn't obey her she put in the paper to reduce around she did but it was two months later another word she said that she dropped something in the in the box rent she never said that's the wrong amount and than then yes true this is over she gave her the note and then the rug would have gone down equal first for april first and so part of the judges i think th and you say you know give you so much time to move up up up up and then you further say you have a right to continue if you have a right to get an attorney and they don't then they signed the agreement they wait this was on this was on april eighteenth now she didn't she she went back and talked to the manager i assume and the manager when taken and she and she was they'd come may fifteenth and a motion is made on may seventeenth i mean general there's a general theme in the law that says they have to there's a preference that matters should be disposed on the merits and  counsel concluded his argument today by saying we're not looking for a winner here we're just looking for a hearing on the merits and so my question is why should we just let literally every hearing on the merits you know but i'll tell you something else it's interesting we talk about we talk about fairness and and how everyone should know everything there was a defendant and i'm having critical but defendant filed a brief practical world you do this and then later more comes from it which should may or may not be considered because there were a lot there were like three or four new takes on that there were never in the first one so there's also kind of a rule i think  agreed orders and the rules of agreed orders change hutton i don't know what's going to him anyway thank you case and she stated that they court did not explain material terms of the order to her the court just said you have an agreement so the affidavit actually functions like a high standards from what i would also like to address the contention that we are somehow accusing i mean time of doing anything improper we are not accusing misconduct making any misrepresentations what we're saying is that mr khan did not explain material terms of the recorder to miss king so she did not understand it mr tung reasonably believed that the order provided for one thing judging for possession plus the right rent claim plus court cost enforcement of the judgment state thirty days miss king reasonably believe entire end explicitly on allegations that had not been set forth in the terminations otus and that was improper but because the trial court was trying to do the right thing that it received no advance notice of place counsel also makes the point that there are many thousands of fiction actions that are filed every year in chicago and that ninety percent of them are resolved through agreed orders and if this court allows agreed or has to be vacated the whole system will grind to a halt plaintiffs once this court to believe that it must sacrifice justice for efficiency and that is not all the rent amanda plus court costs that's all that needs to be done in these cases to ensure that under a percent of litigants enforceable cases understand the material terms of the orders that they are signed in this case it her tenancy nothing that was stated at the hearing on the motion to face hey contradicts miss king's sworn assertion that she did not understand the orders material terms the trial court accepted that assertion