however the court then went on to say that damages both for injury and monetary damages as well as injunctive relief is available under the consumer protection act which is currently before this court as well so while  can no similar right to relief anywhere else in the statute nevermind that the use of the word waiver but they did say that the those same issues could be  well that's the problem is that the issue of holder is one of some dispute under washington law and what the trial court did was just simply didn't even address the issue of who the holder might be the fact of the matter is  the the no itself defines the term holder and that was never addressed by the trial court in the note itself the holder is defined as the party who is intitled to holding the know well i well we don't know we don't know but i would argue your honor that the the holder of this particular note is is freddie mac or securitized trust the freddie macas signed the no two and the critical question which was ignored by the trial be i you know i'm getting confused it seems to me like that were you know i'm familiar with that tack aeration as well and we seem to be talking about a different i mean i feel like we're talking past each other that you're talking about a case that and we've read some other cases but let me ask you about the quiet title clain that is gone or you concede then that she's unable and unwilling to pay off her debt so that gets rid of the quiet title well no walker gets rid of a quiet title walker says that for the proposition that the no damages what is it that your my client has never has never wanted a free home what she wanted was an opportunity to modify the loan and the only way she she can do relevant issues and unless we can find the real note holder the as defined by the number itself she won't be able to get anything but partial relief because the servicers by the by the fact that they are agents are constricted by the agency relationship and without knowing who the principal is and addressing the principal directly she won't be able to do much more than go around a big circle with regard to the construct that would be my my wish because there are too many factual issues that were simply glossed over by the trial court when it's over simplified her miss vance claims and unfortunately the trial speculation essentially what this of aand has done in her complaint is come forward and say no you're not and that's good enough to create a genuine issue of disputed fact well that's not that's rank speculation i think to use an analogy from judge by b in no you're not you are five foot two you are that's a genuine issue disputed fact and i should get a trial that's not enough counsel mr jones said this morning he has no idea who holds the note is total speculation it might be a trust it might be somewhere it might be fre says at that mr boyle is a shady character or something along those lines what is this record show there's nothing about mr boyle your honor mr boyle testified as one of us corporate representative provided evidence explaining that the copy of the note that was provided with the summary judgment was the actual original note there was some question raised by miss beyond about another copy of the note that indy mac had indorsed at some other time mr boyle w cold both in his testimony and his affidavit that that was some other copy that was not the original though the original note as i testified in my declaration was in my office and the copy that was attached to the summary judgment was a true correct copy of was indorsed in blank it was held by one west that makes them the holder that makes them the beneficiary that's all there is to it it's straightforward application of commercial paper law that one west was the beneficiary insofar as northwest trustee duty for northwest trustee to have gone out and verified or done some other double checking of information judge packman in the nicholson decision which this court recently affirmed clearly articulated that a trustee does not have a duty to double check in some format the holder of the note but it is not under the terms of the note itself not the party to whom the payments are to be received they are merely a service or when they received their authority it was only declaration of northwest trustees services materials for that what freddie mac was the owner of the obligation now there's been a lot of confusion in that you know who and that's one of the the my client's claims with regard to the deed of trust violations that there's no indication who these people are it just goes around in a circle