matter we need to stay focused on what the issues are here because there really is such a mountain of factual evidence this is an appeal  from the sale house that was sold in foreclosure and the confirmation of the sale so what we're looking at is in the underlying motion for summary judgment and therefore we have to keep in mind that standard for the summ from the judge and from the proceedings to force trial judge is that the show specifically used a standard that was not a consideration of the facts and was not looking how did your clients rely on any misrepresentation here if they never make any paying to the flight on to their any forbearance agreement not they were able to make those payments and that was that's one of those issues of fact because in our verified affirmative defenses and i think she did that when they contacted the bank there kept sending the notices late they were ready willing and able to move forward but the bank withdrew it that's her are verified affirmative defenses that verified affirmative defense really worth three hundred twenty five thousand dollars how does this situation at all like that we're talking here about a difference of ten thousand dollars whether it's a mistake or deliberate how is that like investigate the number of people that were at the snail power how silly was conducted whether or not we weren't allowed to bring forth witnesses whether or not ah was pretty obvious that that was the issue i doubt that any of these banks at all we've made a mistake so there might have been here but have you had people left to say there were people bought the property because there were no bids as to whether or how many people showed up at the sale i don't believe there is evidence at this school because we want to let happen evidence here hearing on this issue  higher and the actual amount of the judgment is in fact time where we would be we would be we would be i'm not sure that we would be prejudiced except because  because counsel mentioned multiple times that they alleged in there that they were able to make the payment and therefore there was a disputed question fact on an appendix page forty seven in paragraph or by certified mail sorry but then they also inquired as to when the payment could be made and the record isn't clear on what happened after that but it shows that on january eleven did it maybe it's not misleading because it's not it's there's no evidence that they relied on it as being misleading they never tried to send him no money they didn't try to send in go back to the point that they couldn't make the initial payment earlier in the record there's evidence from december that even with the first plan they could make the three thousand dollars initial payment that was due on december twenty first they were asking as early as december fourteenth to make that payment on january fourteenth instead of december twenty first now january fourteenth is after the date that our position is that's an immaterial amount in the sense that i'm not minimizing the amount of ten thousand dollars i'm sure we would all love to have an additional ten thousand dollars but in this case it's immaterial because the judgment amount is not tied to the sale now it's not tied to the initial it amounts to the sale it's an amount that they are honestly that as this court noted there's no evidence in the record that they suffered it's not required to be in the notice if it was a mistake it was but it's not an injustice it's it's not an injustice right now because as the supreme court noted  in both cases the injustice complained directly affected by the complaining parties interest in their property in some way here there's no personal deficiency amounts you're not on the hook for more money in a sense they're not saying that on this when we're talking just about you were comparing say oh we're not saying any other reason for why  they would owe more money or why it matters whether the bank did credit bid two hundred i believe it was two hundred twenty thousand something like that  deficiency judgment that in the morning drew would be personally responsible for that and that's obviously a huge amount of money for any more mature to be responsible for if there was something  dishonest or an equitable done at the sale of that resulted in that state and that sale price but here there's no evidence that anything was done that affected the sale a particular amount and the notice did not but i think there's two answers to the first is that although in general  the interests of the actual judgment of foreclosure of the paragraph dealing with the terms of sale doesn't prescribe it mimics the language of fifteen zero seven it doesn't say that that implies that there was something shifty going on and some ulterior motive and while i can see that could be the case i misinterpreted your counsel i wasn't  also just as easy to say that that amount shows that all that happened was they just prepared all these documents in advance and they failed and when the judgment amount in the judgment of foreclosure was changed by in justice under this section before where and all the cases we've talked about the last few minutes where the lenders contact prevented the powers from protecting their interest in the property and affected their right to redeem the property how did this affect their right to redeem the property well it would affect it would affect the rights to it would affect their interest in getting taxed the first part it affects their interest in the property because when because didn't was it fast it what it did in fact rise to the level of an injustice and it was no use of discretion not to find injustice because the judge indicated asked about it that didn't have to be in there then this yes because when you went through this information that doesn't have to be in there you were still including something that is misleading and where including something that it is an absolute ok to a dollar and to a cent this is the judgment amount you are who are telling the public that this is the amount that attaches to this property ok and citation to the illinois constitution including many statutes i would respectfully point out in caution you that citing one section for example for a violation of due process without any case law and without explanation and creation of a cogent legal argument to a company that doesn't meet the requirement of the rule nor does citing case law only for boilerplate meet the requirements of the rule i'm sure you've often read and we often see and we often write that dumping the burden of research upon the appellate court is something that we don't condone so i would