know you go ahead and i'm interested in the distinction between a modification and refinance outrage particular interest there is a distinction and we believe congress addressed those questions in ace in different ways but got to the same result in other words as you as your honor knows the refinance provision was expressly amended in two thousand in the definitional part of the h p a but there was also activity with respect to modifications in the substantive provision of forty nine o t d and it's quite common for congress to attack or address issues in a different way using different language but still reach the same result that can and can be overcome and here it is it is overcome because the language achieves the same result and i think we can we know that if you look back that representatives were false as comments into in two thousand he made three essential points in the legislative history that includes loan modifications and then third with respect to refinance it specifically he did say we need to use the updated property valuations because those that will avoid punishing consumers whose housing values have appreciated you know there's the senate but that is true but here i'm not just relying on those comments i would rely on the statutory structure and the purpose because the poor all agreed that you use updated values for the finances we're all agreed that you use updated values for permissive consumer initiated cancellation than what was congress doing if it adopted a different rule for loan modifications there's no it's turns the statute on its head because congress has adopted by the end the regulators have adopted a hardship standard for loan modifications right it's asking where the thirty eight the mortgage payment has to meet my more than thirty one percent of your gross income and so what would it really would be hard to believe that the statutory structure isn't at punishing the most vulnerable people who are suffering hardships the most i mean our interpretation is shortening pinup p m i payment periods for the vast majority of consumers not  seventy but you have to take the five fifty three three thirty number so it's a loan to value is about ninety percent roughly she gets under hamp she gets the loan reduced from four ninety seven forty eight to ok we need to have this insurance but the trouble is she's been paying for the insurance and if now she's underwater from the get go by when he three thousand dollars instead of be protected isn't the burden on her even greater than it was heretofore when the house was valued at five fifty three three thirty well the burden on her unfortunately is is greater end the first my first argument be it strict literalist argument that the first clause the first sentence talks about agreeing to a modification if the if the parties agree to a modification and so they he agree the form is actually yes it's in fact it's silent as the original or better say dowdy so so there's so but our argument is as a matter of raw the statute is provides uniform rules that mortgage services across the country to the same result by saying she implied lee agreed to do things that weren't interest part of the modification in other words we no dispute that a updated valuation is a precondition a hundred six said that the financial accounting regulations governing savings and loans were part of the agreement between the united states and people who took over their savings i want to make the argument you make because it looks to me like it isn't explicit that calculating determination that on the basis of the original value was changed so that they could calculate on the basis of a broken process to make the argument that you're making it seems that you have to say that borrower would say you should be using the update i can't find a single case where says the there is a right of action to a borrower work with regard to their rules were depending the service and guidelines right i'm not saying there's a private right of action your honor i'm simply saying that the agreement between us and the plaintiffs includes as an implied term that can anything that a condition of the loan and this is a condition of the loan that there be an updated valuation so i'm not saying that the that there is a private right of action i'm not saying the hamp guidebook is it is for the protection of consumers and i'm having a hard time understanding how it's in the interest of consumers to have as a condition of a loan modification a valuation they don't even know argue she doesn't say that she didn't know about the valuation she didn't know the basis for the p m i calculation that was for a series of complaints and as you know the separate the limitations issue was separate ground we think she did  shot it doesn't use the word injury so according to the to the h p a limitation statute the obligation to see runs when you're aware of the violation and she knew of in her under her theory that violation in october tw filed so wrong as it was timely filed in the first instance fourteen a success out of six hundred thirty one i can't remember one test that one does it is just like the refinance provision and jabber correctly said you have to read the statutes together to make sense employee and supervisor who are both threatened by the defendant and they could be a she was is the word employee or official are those different words or can they be construed together and you are considered them together and reach the right result  source of this and she didn't get that is her until twelve thirteen edition of which i don't think dominic was using the word source in the sense of what is the defendant's reason or any motive for dominic there were two there as i recall a suit earlier and i think here the particular reason that we were extending p m i would have mattered what it was just a mathematical error she still knew of the violation in october twenty two out of i know my time is over  and as as justice and as he pointed out the damage to the plaintiffs was approximately an additional twelve years of p m i payments mrs reed is obligated to pay two hundred fifty two dollars a month for an additional twelve months additional twelve years when that adds up it's over thirty six thousand dollars so the harm here is concrete and when you get to the interpretations that j p morgan is trying to foster here is it seeing statutory construction on ahead what you have to do is look at the plain unordinary language of the statute and if you look at the statute it defines the original bout but before we get there just put it one bit of debris to there's absolutely nothing in the paperwork from mrs reed that discusses a reevaluation of the property at the time of the modification there's nothing in it in the form three one five seven which is the standard form fannie mae use cases that are side if i defendant concern on just or implied company good faith and fair dealing but i think when you look at the fannie mae guidelines and hand guidelines of the treasury department they concern obligations between j p morgan status arguing that those guidelines that the third party beneficiaries of those guidelines and in every situation the courts have held those guidelines do not govern the terms between the consumer and the servicer such as chicken morgan here so there is no implied term  so one those were me ten years additional payments no she didn't know necessarily the reasoning for that and she didn't find that out too the following year but did she not then  that hadn't yet occurred because she sought to make payments but it was coming yes right well there's two aspects to it and he has a number of different aspects there's the disclosure requirement and also there's also the automatic term nation requirement as well and when you're dealing with the payments the payments were in schedule to come in and took two thousand and fourteen she filed a complaint within due to your statue of limitations so the actual monetary damages in accrue until two thousand fourteen well within a statue of limitations with respect to the disclosure big she knew that there was in a dish with respect to the modification the principal balance changed in the  monthly interest rate rate the out of sight interest rates the principal balance changed as well as the monthly payment she had no understanding of why she came i paid was pushed out and additional twelve years which is why she submitted a number of letters to chase to try try to find out what happened so there was no basis for to understand they were modified terms in a loan the principal balance modified but there was no understanding whatsoever that that would push out the p m i an additional twelve years there was no basis for to understand why that occurred which is why she she contacted chase in the first place to try to find out why that was happening and what she got back was some standard bowl of plate letters indicating essentially nothing in two thousand and three thirteen when indicated to use that p p o in place of the sales price or the appraisal value to re evaluate the property at the time of the modification that's that which that's what's triggered her investigation into it into an understanding why it was pushed out the additional twelve years point when you when there are differences in the alleged facts in the complaint there's not a full record to develop to determine the facts in the case so in addition to the discussion of the a cruel there's also the the factual  so i'm not sure if it was appropriate to render a decision based on the record before the court at that time but i think it was more properly dealt with after that actual discovered what about the practical implications  past that point in this discussion is going to be cited number of cases in a briefing that says you stick with the statutory construction if the if that if the language is clear that's the end to be inquiry but with respect to your particular question your honor i think the  discussion on the on the disruption of the mortgage industry is speculative i mean there's nothing in the record to suggest that the concrete harm that they're suggesting we know what the concrete hard to misread is she's got to pay an additional thirty six thousand dollars and pay my insurance so what with respect to those other issues i think a lot of the discussion of these new jobs or thirty thousand i'm sorry thirty six thousand or thirty thousand thirty six thousand euro it's two hundred fifty dollars a month that you reach the seventy eight percent in twenty fourteen is that right correct think that the statute should be read in in light of those guidelines and those guidelines are useful data in interpret and what the statute need to out argue we're not contesting that the statute obviously banks higher than  financial protection bureau put up guidance that says in part quote sorceror should nonetheless remember that investor guidelines cannot restrict the p m i cancellation of traditional rights of the s b a provides to borrowers that was will get their p m i benefits terminated more quickly than the people who are in the health program and that can't be right and with respect to mistreat in particular i as i mentioned she's net ahead on on her after her  modification she will not pay the full twelve years because she has a miss if p m i from the nation which will happen when she hit seventy eight per i mean i'm sorry eighty percent of her loan balance and in any event there's automatic terminations at the midway point of the consequences here are not speculative this is not a case where industry is running in and saying you better not do this because the fannie mae guy has been in existence since twenty ten and a whole industry is lined up in or why it's not it and frankly as i said our role in this case is that the mortgage service or we're not keeping a p m i payments our main concern is that there are going to be millions of consumers who are reaching because of their increased activity are going to be expecting p m i term the nation and if that doesn't happen because the how do you create a system that works how can you create a system that is generally going to work for consumers and allow them to capture the benefit of the increased equity in their homes because that's important for millions of american homeowners and that this is why  may has it this way the statute and the secure and the mortgage securities industries have grown up along this understanding and we think there's enough room in the statute to allow you to say this is an implied term or condition or the plight five in fact or implied