i would suggest to your honor's that this is not quite so simple the complaint that was filed in the circuit court by the plaintiff at least allege that the plaintiff's pelleas owned and then she said where the trial court judge basically took the credibility of the plaintiff the pallies against my file mike i was very clear that when that note came back into going to change they were all being tied to various and my question was were both involved in real estate they were they both understood what was going on my client is is not some wizard of consideration and again getting back to this this restaurant one settlement state and we should we should reconsider because why first off why did she separate transactions for one property that's  even if we did not even if we did not there's a contract in place and the first thing we should always look to use the four corners of the contract and again in that contract it's hard for it's hard for me to understand how you can say that record states that my client had read the course and i think that reflects that there's a fire they couldn't produce the note and therefore that's when the judge had to rely on this for all of this in terms of where's the know what he doesn't even know what he signed up for so he can't come up with a note even though it's always the usual course of things that the person who's claiming that the note was an author also can't come up with his copy so now you're quite can't come up with his copy the original cop that and i think what has you read and read into the record and this is in the record is that there was this personal wishes for frankly i don't know this is a note that was ever intended to be enforced and when the relationship when that all of a sudden we have this note now that's being enforced because it's a poorly constructed know it doesn't identify any subject matter i used to have dealt with previous in the past several different transactions and had to change  sorts of things before so i don't know that it's totally unreasonable to think that this money was coming from rehab or something of a nother property which is what i think my client was trying to say we said i'm not sure what the stellar but it didn't was taken out of his property for total of four hundred forty thousand dollars and at the same time there's a note for this property where my client is promising to pay eighty thousand dollars you can have one in the other and again one one thing about the rest it is it's a consumer protection statute that could've been contained in a part of the the rest but that's that would have made this clear that would have made this the our approach would have been very clear concise every part and facet of the deal that was going out the question is why why is it separate the rest was not unclear that proceeds are paid to the plaintiffs for this property yet the plaintiffs are still saying we have this additional venture from from the guy but that's for some reason wasn't included that is part of the rest but and on the very same day he the problem is all of your arguments were considered by the trial judge and he made his decision you know he said the credibility of the witness and we have to find that this is against the manifest weight of the evidence and as long as their evidence to support them that's the problem well again that's interesting all we do know is that there is a judgment in favor of the evidence i think we're i mean again i think we do when we're dealing with a property that someone is saying hey i think these guys court why why am i being held to this note for something altogether different direct question i don't know where in the record is it was that overture made so that  again i would like to know the court to consider the notion that you can have a real estate transaction for property and then not afford the forty thousand and still not that we know the area understand the market values of this property separately to but he can't show it if he doesn't have the original notice and that he's paid exactly what would be due on the note given the that it was ok to time the interest is exactly the amount but it is something else that he doesn't know what it about well i think it's telling that there was one payment and maybe there's some pause after that as to what's going on here why is there one payment is that i think a better question why aren't there more payments promissory note and i think any of you probably would have made the same decision but that's not the question of course the question is whether his decision was against the man as well so there are there are two issues that came up at trial basically  no where does their signature appear on it now the way this was structured was because the defendant was a ten percent owner this wasn't structured as as a purchase and sale it was structured as a  on on the rescue agreement was structured as a refinance by the defendant and and again i'll point out there were no lawyers involved here so if i have been representing them even though i don't owe real estate part i think i would have done things very differently but they didn't they sat outside that closing room and the defendant reeves was inside the closed room and dealt with the closer and he signed the rest but my clients knew would sign it so if it didn't say that there's a thousand dollars that has to do with this deal well that so what basically they didn't sign it and and if you look at the rest but even what we know about what happened in this deal it's it's wrong it says they were each to get one hundred fifty nine thousand dollars and you can see in in the in the record they got one hundred fifty thousand dollars they didn't get one hundred fifty nine and so on its face and given the information that you have from it from the record you can see the thing was wrong in that respect so how do we know that the eighty thousand dollars was part of the deal well first of all you have the eighty thousand dollars note which was attached to the complaint and you're correct to point out that they didn't come up with any alternative that shows that there was some other there was some other agreement and you have the testimony of my clients who both very credibly explained that they had had a deal with with defendant reeves an issue really they'd had this written deal that that he was going to buy the building for five hundred thousand dollars and that fell through because  the because the appraisal from the bank came in less than that and so they made the last minute an oral agreement ok it will take three eight instead it three hundred seventy five thousand dollars that's in the record they said let's get out of this thing will get a little bit more than that and he'll be paid for his sweat equity for the work that he's done we'll get three eighty they'll give us three hundred at the closing in cash which you've seen and he'll give us a no for eighty thousand dollars well there's no for eighty thousand dolla at trial trap houses said referred to this is a raggedy note and it sure is it is a raggedy no no i would not have had my client sign this but i wasn't there there are a lot of things they got off the internet there a lot of things handwriting and that's not what it looked like when he signed the note but the judge didn't believe them among other things i was trial counsel wanted things that we presented it was a copy of similar to me and that's one of the pieces of evidence that i put forward so there is there is that that certainly goes to the credibility of of the defense and judge kirby also pointed out on the record that presumption that there was in fact value received for that no and that can be rebutted but has to be clear and cogent evidence and we don't believe that the evidence that he presented was clear and co it wasn't it was a game a note on that tape but it had nothing to do you know the same date it had nothing to do with that deal that was some other deal that was something else future transactions know and they were supposed to be money later and they never met and yet there was nothing to flesh out that testimony as to what exactly were these future endeavors in news other deals and you're correct that that he was in fact a real estate investor and he should a known better one of my clients was also a real estate investor but that doesn't mean that he in any way took advantage of you know they they took this note away from it they took copies of  there was testimony from both of them that the defendant left the original he said that there was a fire so he couldn't produce the rich well you know the judge chose not to  now there was the merger argument that was brought up in the briefs counsel argue that that the rest of the closing statement merged any agreements and so basically  there were no other agreements involved as to be the deal merged and in all agreements that the merger issue really does not apply to this case the merger role is that if the terms of a real estate contract are fulfilled by the delivery of a deed the net mergers that merges the contract if there are any other provisions in the contract that have been built then they're gone that's merge  the rest is not a realistic track the rest is a summary of the deal that my clients didn't even sign so the merger simply doesn't apply there really aren't any legal issues here beyond deciding what's the standard of care and that's the standard view and that's against manifest when the evidence and then just looking at the evidence you can see that the judge kirby did reject the arguments at trial just to fill you when there is nothing in the record now with a more full explanation of judge or b s ruling he took it under advisement a week later we came back and and we didn't have a thousand dollars that's fully thousand dollars plus the interest to that day so that implicitly he rejected the arguments that there were no consideration and that this wasn't the no i sign so i would like the sports were to reverse i wonder what we'll be discussing if there had been a written ruling there isn't but if there are any other questions i'd be happy to address them right now but right