an appeal from second district appellate court e m c mortgage has placed a number of procedural robots in front of the second district and also in front of the supreme court as to why we should not address the ultimate merits of our defense after denying our motion to reconsider our two fourteen zero one motion before the trial court the honorable judge robert gibson stated that the motion laid out many seek the approval and also then seek reconsideration if we're ever able to reach the merits of our defenses that we've raised we feel this would be a case of first impression in illinois as a second district however world that since comes appeal was not for a final judgment or was not a proper thrill for a ruling they dismissed our appeal for lack of jurisdiction however should this court ultimately decide to reverse the second district court and confer public jurisdiction the subsidy question which we're asking this court to decide the issue really would be perhaps something for the first time ever heard before this court is whether a lender can file a complaint to foreclose a mortgage seven months before it possess any apparent ownership interest as admitted by e m c in its own affidavits we submit that based upon an extension of the only case of bay few when service and nelson and vs nelson case and a comprehensive analysis which we've laid out of cases in ohio and michigan in new york to this court should direct a finding that even seize judgment should be baked hated and a case dismissed because the norm c did not have proper standing at the time that it filed in the show lawsuit back in july of two thousand and six as the known mortgage were not by the treasurer of mirabelle a mortgage l c s such the negotiable instrument the instrument analysis that they laid out in their brief would not apply as a note in question constitutes a special indorsement and would not be negotiated by transfer of possession alone and i direct you back to the procedural issues before we talk about merits ok you reason number of my ideas here you just talked about where judgment and i do think we need to be really clear lack of standing makes it a void judgment i think that the question of whether or not we could bring this as simply a two fortune one motion we're asking essentially one of our arguments was not to ok and so my question it goes back to are you with trying to attack a final judgment well if the point when the case was brought to the trial court in our in our  motion that that's the dilemma that we have here your honor is that essentially waiting until we reach a some summary disposition of the sheriff's sale and distribution of proceeds oftentimes  suit should have waited until it owned title to that mortgage and we're trying to figure out what's the best way to raise that right and if you look so when it went to court as we know that in the marriage breakdown this court talked about  the judgment is subject to revision any time our position is it is subject to revision at any time in specific settings where a court language and so was it three which states that appeal may be taken from a judgment or order granting or denying him relief prayed for in fourteen zero one petition no no we're at we're not asking the court to determine whether it's proper to fortune one petition of that vacate the judgment order that was denied upon a motion to reconsider and at that point the trial court judge granted us three zero for a language on the three for june second order in light of the you're standing in the sign well i guess i guess that's the question is one of judicial economy your honor we we're dressing this issue now and if the if it's something where the final order following the disposition of the proceeds of the sale go through oftentimes the you bring this to us mortgage and largest mortgage defendant will begin is out on the street to your basis for coming here now  schroeder supreme court case that allowed three or four finding on a motion to reconsider an order there was also another case we cited where an order denying a motion a vacate a prior order was also grounds for thrill for a finding and it in our case we're asking that that those considerations of an expanded bureau thrill for a be extended beyond just their immediate cases but into foreclosure cases as well it we've asserted it from the outset in denying various allegations made in their complaint we've also asserted it in our motions we presented to the trial court and we've asserted it defense that was the first time was specifically are you but it but the allegations are pertinent to the lender standing as a wedge i believe in paragraph four of their complaint were the night time this this matter came  and again this is a case sometimes when we step in after pro se litigants but through this this becomes something where we we take these types of situations as they appear i think i think one of the whether or not a complaint that was a default judgment was entered and then the defendant later raised an issue of standing after that the fault we find that is distinguishable in part because we had a  denial of every material element there in our in our answers and didn't answer the case and thus would be distinguished from that specific case we do say that this is a situation where  may ultimately have a right to appellate review on this issue again if we simply wait until the sheriff said the robbers as i had stated in the interests of judicial economy were asked to an opportunity to see view of that issue now and by doing so within two years of the entry judgment order before the judgment before the order from from the sale or sensually asking if the court this court could reverse the finding of the people but the the endorsement was actually signed by the initial mortgagee in our not in our might our position is that that became a special endorsement and not a the note becomes effective upon the recipient based upon when delivery years heard the natural fact question which perhaps could be seen but for review or remand would be when was that note then to delivered by e m c zone affidavits their wedge that the interest in this note in mortgage did not become conferred until december of two thousand and six or january of two thousand and seven which is please the court my name is edward lesniak and together with my law partner susan horner who could not be here today to represent e m c mortgage corporation it reviewing court has a duty to consider its jurisdiction and to dismiss an appeal if it determines that jurisdiction is wanting and that is exactly what the second district appellate court did in this case and it did it correctly because there was no final order entered in the trial court in this case now the appellee make several arguments to try to impose jurisdiction on the appellate court in order to consider the circuit court's orders to deny his motion to her motion to vacate and denying the motion for reconsideration but the arguments are all flawed and they're all flawed for the same reason there was no final order in the t court now first let's consider rule three alone there can be no jurisdiction under rule three zero one because there was no final order in the case it's well established for don the fact ho that in a foreclosure action the final order in the case is the order approving the sale and providing for the distribution of the sales proceeds now there can be section thre claims and states that if multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action and appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims in so it would understand three or four is that it's only appropriate when the court in its discretion chooses to allow a final judgment to be appealed that is correct your honor and it also as you point out applies in the case of multiple parties and multiple claims mr cheney had already been dismissed in this case by the time the orders the motion for reconsideration came up so and also i believe before the judgment was out or so there one claimant in the mortgage foreclosure case yes there is in this particular case but from experience i can tell you that there are full quota cases where there are multiple claims and multiple parties who may be involved and it is possible to deal with one claim at a time or to obtain for example partial summary judgment dealing with perhaps a mechanic's lien claim or a member atom of the judgment so it is possible to have a situation in a foreclos case where there could be a particular claim that involved one of multiple parties one of multiple claims or multiple issues that could conceivably be appealable your judgment of foreclosure is a claim and the called a judgment on the order approving sale the judgment of foreclosure contemplates a sale and then the statute requires that after that sale the foreclosure statute requires that after that sale occurs the court has to consider whether or not the sale was conducted properly whether notice was given whether justice was done the number of requirements for the court to take into consideration in approving the sale three or four applies just as well as well yes y you cannot obtain three or four a language and i have seen situations where counsel tried to sneak it in the courts of stricken it so it's a very difficult thing to obtain in a straightforward residential mortgage foreclosure case that was denied in the top of five of two thousand and ten that was labeled eight to fourteen zero one petition could not be a two for two no one petition because there simply was no final order you can call it what you want but the label should not control it's the substance of the motion that counts so that could not be a true fortune or one motion in this case because there was no final order now the appellate argues that it doesn't matter what it's called because of voice can be challenged in any ordered entered by an appellate court would be is void is the and in fact there was no void order entered in this case the case tells us that an order is void if the court lacks personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction neither of those is present here the defendant was served appeared participated in the proceedings there's no question of personal jurisdiction and the subject matter for closure place case is clearly proper for for the i also point out that the question of an affirmative defense of standing is clearly waived if not raised early in the case that's longstanding law in illinois and it was not raised here in fact on the contrary in connection early on in the case lastly getting back to three or four a language service an additional point i would like to make three or four a leg which is not a magic wand  three or four a language to automatically confer jurisdiction on a reviewing court the review court has the has the obligation to determine its jurisdiction to examine its jurisdiction and to me it would be turning things on its head if a reviewing court like the appellate court was obligated to take a case simply because a trial court incorrectly made it three zero for a finding now as for the substance of the standing argument it's it's so well established that is that the argument of standing is waived if not raised early on in the case for just that but lastly i would call your attention to the note justice freiman it is certainly a classic b endorsed in blank it had the right under section three three zero one of the uniform commercial code to enforce that even if it wasn't the owner three three zero one says even the throughout the owner or if you were wrongly  blank and you are the bearer you're entitled to enforce so from my perspective e m c established standing to bring the full closure case and they won and and that's that is how the standing issue should be resolved in the end just turn the questions i have nothing further thank you the complaint you'll see anytime an issue was was raised as to whether or not the e m c was was the proper party and suit that that issue was the pacifically tonight it was the night at the at the answer only affidavits which stated we do not own any interest in this note until december of two thousand and six at the earliest it's it's hard for us to look at that and say well that that creates  least create some kind of issue of fact over standing much less or a better person rebuttable presumption that this endorsement in blank perhaps is not valid because their own bank officers are saying we context of which this case comes is troubling but we don't think that that should overcome this court's ability to look at this case and perhaps determine to a spot on to whether or not these issues should be ripe for review by th court thank you for your time thank you