again we are representing hosea dami he is the health in this case and citation respondent and we are seeking from this court a reversal of the circuit court of cook county granting of summary judgment to the estate of arthur four forty south lawndale in chicago illinois on june twenty fourth two thousand and five mr adamic purchased that home from arnold and arthur lidge on the date of the transaction arnold lynch was an adjudicated was that he did not who were the probate court and get authorization for the sale of arms that's correct ok so but he was their ears were yes and he was also the excuse me for kenyatta he was a county ruled they had ulcers conveyance was also void because he signed the same transaction document as arnold and we believe that's where the court erred we don't believe that is consistent with illinois law because arthur had his own individual fundamental we believe it's also important to know that deed of arthur was without condition it's very plain on its face an illinois statutory form of foreign t deed without condition and there are theory is conveying his own individual interest enjoyed tendency so we could we could posit would it matter if arnold and arthur signed two separate pieces of paper or no or one piece of paper no if there were one hundred joint tenants and they sold i would i would say a couple of different responses number one i think under the facts of this case because they are somewhat unique in the after acquired bat doctrine acquired title doctrine applies this court probably could within  power vested family with title i think that's a possibility because if you found arthur's deed effective and found that the application of the effort choir died on title doctrine applied to this case which judge camo did not agree did inherited the property or accept that then the after acquired title doctrine is a pretty easy follow to follow there after but one way or the other mr a dommy is a tenant in common with either the estate of arnold or the  komodo did not address the equities or visa vietnamese and there are certainly questions of fact as to whether mr arnold lynch benefited from the transaction or to the extent because we know we benefited song his mortgage was paid off he had a mortgage on the property that was paid at closing and there are seventy thousand dollars in proceeds available now a public guardian public administrator asserts that mr bryant misappropriate that money the pleadings are clear mr bryant denies that so we would have to review the circuit court would need to review we're going to the extent that our allege a benefit from the sale to the extent that he did think the case was pretty clear and the equities favor i don't think so because the courts in dealing with these able persons based discuss wain of the equities that would be one component but then your actual good faith and actual benefit to the disabled person equities being pulled you consider more than one factor that's a technical we all know that there's constructive notice and there's some technical things you're charged with but the equities are more than one factor this was never part of the circuit courts or inquir if it was natural order because the court simply ruled that because arnold was a disable person his cake transaction was void and because arthur signed the same transaction document the deed that arthur's in his mind they didn't appear disabled so there is evidence in the in the record as to what his perceptions as was alicia plata his attorney who had stated did she had no inclination that they we also believe that mr that the court erred when ever judge kamado erred when she ruled that a da me was vested with no title we believe i'm sorry that about the constructive notice aspect i would have i would think i believe that the cases really provide that constructive don't us alone techno constructive notice does not put you out of the bonafide purchaser because again the court considers the equities how you know in some of the cases where consideration was not and was not return what was a purchase price of these of either read the real value did the negotiating buyer know you have actual knowledge adami we asserted not also to one of the cases talks about of a title abstract would have shown any any estate open in a in a conservative conservatory state where this type of commitment did not we assert prepared by their own attorney so respectfully i don't agree that he would be foreclosed so we'll reserve a couple of minutes if we think sure you'll have five  yes ok mr counsel argued that this court had the authority to vest title and mr downey that is not correct why now if this court reverses then it would go back to the trial court for further proceedings on  original citation petition which out so you could have second shot at everything yes we had a second shot at how can it be fair i mean that's a disturbing thing to me about this record we have a situation your your side is correct that they were misappropriated point they were well let's assume it ok it seems to me that at that point the complaint is that they should have gotten their share of the proceeds and had you and your cowardly gotten how a month after this transaction and him brought it to the probate court it seems like an argument could be made that the transaction but the entire interest and the property is held by joint tenants which in this case other brothers there is no valid contract without the signature of both of the parties it's really the of the fire to enforce right here we have the the fancy of the buyer to retain the benefit of the direct and the there was no contract well the entire property i can't tell you what the intent of the brothers where one was adjudged disabled and the other one is was also disabled by a literacy and mental retardation but there's been no fair idea there that is correct ok there's the or no we did not mr dummy is not a bona fide purchaser clearly he says he didn't have actual notice but he actually had constructive notice and he had actual notice i understand us again so what i'm suggesting is that this case in my humble opinion screens for a resolution amongst everyone to or the mortgage or because just how immoral gave the brothers the house so the with the mortgagee such fears his highness the more he she still has only the so the house has been granted with but i'm trying to find out why t n h mortgage is responding to you name them why did a recently named i'm not seeking some relief from the mortgage we did we ask for either the house or the value of the home which is trial quite properly entered summary judgment again the entire conveyance was void from the very beginning because the deceased brother could not sign the deed so the entire transaction was void and again i say to this court that it has a duty to protect the interests of the disabled person and in that case is both of the brothers both of the brothers were disabled one by incapacity and arthur  five minutes that should be fine with me in large measure put my notes aside and perhaps address the court's questions i think it's important to put this into procedural posture this case is before this court on a three o four a finding right as a result of they have only one issue was decided with analogy by the trial work and that is the issue with respect to the validity will say of the transfer the other questions that the court has raised regarding the mortgage the moneys the tenancy except truck are issues that would still be ripe for adjudication in the trial court and the trial court recognized that so we look at the equities the council spoke of and that the court spoke of the trial court humble opinion is a pretty good claim against his title carrier that he didn't get a good title because he couldn't get title so i think with the quickness recognizes what the trial court also recognized is that when you look at the case the way it comes up here it comes up only on affirms these other actions can then spring back to life there were claims filed in the trial court the one against the estate was dismissed as premature because until there's a citizen here there may be no claim against the estate the one against the able to state was specifically reserved in the ten twenty six so i think it's important to consider that there's no windfall that's going to occur here because there still is a litigation possibility there is no issue with respect to whether it's the core point out there's a waiver i submit there is not any waiver of other claims if you would reverse because although i would proceed in the trial court on this question avoid as a matter of law there were still other issues that it could be  found that it wasn't entirely then you're getting a second bite at the apple by saying well ok now we're going to go after mr damn he's the beast i don't think we're getting a second by the apple because of the way it once again came up it didn't come up as a final judgment under three a one but it came up as a thrill for a appeal and therefore it only came up in that very narrow issue if it would go back on remand i would submit that any of these arguments could be brought and the reason i think that's important is when you put it back into context this arises remember in a citation proceeding and although summary judgment is typically have to know full review in a citation proceeding we look for a standard to review as to whether the manifest weight of the evidence supported the results let me hear the profound that let me interrupt that would we see this is it's intriguing to judge komodo said if if mr that now that this group not be his property the title company has to reimburse the two estates seventy nine thousand dollars at least that they should have received at this closing is the everything was on the up and up again at nine and no that's a stretch and that's and that's truly i think the predicate that's missing here if everything is he's point out is on the up and up if you and i saw something with each other that's all one of us could expect would be the net the reason they could have expected no sale is arnold certainly as the court points out the probate act could not sell under these circumstances and arthur we have not reached this factual question and probably could not have either but even if at the time he's deemed to be competent the best he could sell is what he owned right but because of under other cases the first disability of our live the time the whole transaction would fall and i think therefore what everyone could have expected looking forward at the sale is that it and in those cases one joint tenet was negotiating for a sale condition his or her performance on the rather joint tending joining act in that conveyance and the n s t vs johnson case is really is really the supreme court case the rule you can certainly condition your conveyance on your joint tenet joining but if you don't and you contract you're obligated to sell just as mr johnson was and as versus johnson now stand in fact that the buyer one of the whole property so that's that's what they assert as well in their briefs oh damn i wanted the whole property so he gets nothing so it goes through the whole transaction buys and sells consummated transaction and gets nothing i don't think that doesn't make any logical