and two thousand and three a few years later she ran into financial difficulties couldn't pay the mortgage and ultimately was foreclosed that foreclosure was on offer it was unlawful because at the time because miss jackson brief did not address either the may third twenty thirteen order or the july eleventh twenty thirteen order that dismissed her claims against bank of america we also have been moved out record the transcript of that on july eleventh hearing so even if there was an appeal to the district court bankruptcy really thousand and nine still requires that that be included in the well so the argument is i take it is that because we have to know for review and we're reviewing on the order of the bankruptcy court itself as opposed to the order of the bankruptcy of hell a panel that there's no need to include the record in an appeal to the bankruptcy appellate panel so my point was simply that the rule applies both to the appellate panel and to the district court doesn't matter where you take the appeal to but there is no direct appeal to this court to to look at but really this is just a question of preserving the issue isn't it correct but also say that there are a lot of the arguments were waved in the appeal as well because they weren't raised but i do have four quick points i would like to make a lot of the arguments in the brief work dressed to capital one and to certain post trial orders that judge hoffman made the first issue in distractions brief the challenges however was the court grant of summary judgment on help six of jackson's first amended complaint there's a lot of confusion in distractions brief because when she talks about count six almost all of her briefing has to do with what she perceives were slights that she suffered in connection with the two thousand and eight or closure so i just wanted to stress it's important to note that count six if you look at it very clearly is a count saying wrongful foreclosure in connection with the two thousand and twelve foreclosure and what's an interesting about that count is there was no foreclosure in two thousand and twelve as attorney baker explained there were notices set of an intent to foreclose and then  that she didn't get the required notices under her mortgage and she didn't get the required noses under chapter two forty four section thirty five a now at this point here we are in two thousand an eighteen that foreclosure never on for if there's going to be a foreclosure in the future i don't know it has to do with whether there's just chapter thirteen and confirm worker payments are out there's no question that those notices would have to be reset so the issue as to whether the notices that were sent back in two thousand and twelve were valid is a purely academic there's those notices are never going to result in a pool closure going forward so that's the first point is a lot of the argument in the briefing addressed something that had nothing to do with the two thousand and twelve or closure the other point is that mr jackson in her brief did not address the actual reason why count six summary judgment entered on count six which is the cheek did not come forward with any evidence of damages and it  the opportunity to come forward without the date it's documents evidence saying these are my damages and here's why they're recoverable etc etc she instead made the decision to come forward with no evidence at one point she made the comment which i think both  can't prove one of the elements of their client which is that they separate any legally recoverable damage so that was the issue on count six the next issue which is pardon the expression but the road to hell is paved with good intensions is capital one claim originally did include period did include cost incurred during what the courts follow refer to as the vacancy period where mr jepson was out we looked at that and we said you know what it is fair and just to take those costs out wrong she made none of those arguments she focus all of her time effort and energy arguing that the principle amount was wrong now that's a subtle distinction but it's an important one because if you go through the record there is  valid she made other objections which and the judge ruled on some of them and the judge overruled other ones the judge then subsequently said the only issue that i'm going to decide in the adversary proceeding is value issue was therefore not preserved for appeal because she did not raise any argument that the court original decision saying that that was not an issue that was before the court is not an issue that she addresses all in her pellet briefing with any evidence that she was paying the sonata but i did see some reference somewhere that she was paying her boyfriend a certain amount of right but she didn't come forward with any evidence for the amount of rent that she encouraged during the time she was dispossessed but remember that wouldn't necessarily be damaging to her because she isn't paying anything on the condominium that she she sat at that time she isn't paying any interest payments on that so she had been living in her condominium she would have had  making those payments if program somewhere else was less that i wouldn't i don't imagine that damages but most importantly that was in evidence she came forward with a trial and said i had to incur these costs so that and that wasn't that there's no argument