that attorneys i know what the reason she's here today is so that she could hear me on a record which are happy thirtieth anniversary the river is at the thirtieth anniversary then is why we are fewer and what is the reason is because the trial court did not follow the procedures when considering the two fourteen zero one petition filed by making final in order to obtain relief from the original order and this is a critical distinction it is not the at board the original order that matter is whether this work properly entered the order vacat the original t f t or not the trial of course billed as its arabs should be apparent based on the record these are not that complicated he first is it is rendered a little more complicated because first of course the trot work despite getting being given numerous opportunities this used to did not follow quote a civil procedure and essentially rule on this to fourteen to one sufficient without ever giving the nomen boy an opportunity to present evidence time that was because they were there that morning and everything that record indicates that all they were arguing was the motion to dismiss was drownded on we titled failure to allege standing for failure thousand and three to six months before october twenty first two thousand and one notices in accordance with the statute were sent as required by the statute and the seized by the owner problems were made the court was aware of these problems there was a hearing on december sixteenth of two thousand and ten in which the court became the trial court became aware of this problem the defective notices were attached feet and when once the court it given the opportunity when it is an appropriate issue we would be able to show that it's not fraud as a matter of law as defined in the  documents themselves which are attached to the application which was before the court which the court reviewed so read point knew about this so the hearing where it was said that it would be brought up at a later time yes correct now it wasn't no no that's not exactly correct keep in mind under section twenty two the a sporty is a probably tesco it says the parties have to strictly comply with the notice serving provisions sections right when it's right when it's right then when it became right it was simply not much but the only issue before the court today is whether the appellant is entitled to reimbursement the affected twenty eight with using which is what we have here we have a complete violation of section twenty two forty and that twenty two eighteen money does not c timing if that were the case and then the twenty to eighty money would have had to be tender at the arguments for the motion to reconsider and clearly that nonsense and he was insurance out and absolutely i honestly there has been no issues of how do companies are doing and i think if that policy is stacked then that would have a deafening impact on the redemption rights of the failed to fail completely to issue any sort of twenty two five notice pursuant to the property taxes which have direct and express and very clear provisions and how that is the demand the reason they have a demand and this will come out if ever we're given the opportunity is leaving title made a calculated decision it ensures a title policy known about this case knowing about its ri to require twenty to eighty moneys that he paid because the reduction had been deposited the test purchaser could get the redemption the test owner of the test paper didn't have to repeat twice by paying twenty