there were some issues with him in court one one of the motions it was finally did not appear and then he did now respond to the motion later and then when he was like go a home the others of us women were not have to repay the mortgage and that he or she would be able to remain in the home and tell his or her death were an attachment is a contract so basically we should rely on this representative and she signs a contract based on his presentation and i've stated in the brief that i was present there when he was telling them over and over day she's going to be able to remain in the home after us and passes away and she's just the house is going to be there and tell she passes away and then we'll take  husband and she is in danger of losing her home and we want to acknowledge the human aspect of mr and mrs starkman decided in two thousand and seven that it was in their best interests to take out a reverse  f and they answer is we don't know we do know that at the time they had a mortgage on the property we know they had some i arrest liens and some illinois department of revenue leaves and it's possible that they were in danger of not being able to keep the property a spouse with an age difference they will look to the on this borrower and divide it based on their age the amount of money that they'll be able to get out as part of that reverse mortgage and in this case  it clearly was to their benefit because mr sarkozy was so much older and they were able to get seven hundred fifty six thousand dollars out at the signing of the loan no doubt money went in part to pay off about five hundred forty thousand dollars worth of prior liens including the mortgage and the tax liens and they also take out around two hundred thousand dollars in cash that no doubt will use for living expenses in mr sorkin's care now he lived for several more years could stay in the home if she could and they offered her some options to try to resolve it like a deed in lieu of foreclosure or a short sale and instead the property went to foreclosure you've raised some points about how some of the arguments have been waged here the most important of that at least from my perspective is the idea that there was fraudulent use when it was raised initially as an affirmative defense it was dismissed without prejudice and they never saw at lea briefly and how they may have had a different set of facts and evidence in the record that we'd be talking about today but the bottom line is they did not and that may be an issue because of the prior counsel but it's not an issue that sho inert to the detriment of my client in this case in the light of the contracts themselves are clear they're unambiguous and you don't need to look beyond them to determine what the parties intended and what needs to be enforced here ownership interest certification so with respect to the idea that she is labeled as a borrower on the signature line for the mortgage if you look at paragraph ten of the mortgage it explains how that works interest in the property under the terms of the security instrument is not personally personally although gated to pay the amount secured by the security agreement and agrees the lender and any other borrower may grease subject to a political law to extend points out that the law has changed to build an additional protections and if you have a direct consideration to her for giving up her rights the seven hundred fifty six thousand dollars that they got a closing went partially in cash which one would presume would be used to pay for common enjoying household expenses but more importantly to pay off liens they were encumbering the prop of the property for which she was a benefit chaloner that included prior more with marriage it also included the tax liens that we discussed and i think there was a small landscaping lien as well so she did directly benefit from the transaction but even if she didn't the law is pretty clear here that you can have consideration be a benefit to a third party and here her husband obviously the relationship exists that it wouldn't have consulted with tax tax and legal experts relating to these issues and at the very bottom of that page it says and this is just where she signs that great so it's very clear who this relates to it's her it's not i understand and by my execution of this document and additionally the boxes above confirm the accuracy of each of the statements that court above in addition i understand and acknowledge that should myself be deceased me or fail to occupy a home where i i understand that i may be required to move from my residence that language it is extremely clear and i don't see this as a bait and switch to elderly people who had no idea what they were family members a few of whom are attorneys mr dini acknowledges that he was not asked by his and modest to review the documents but he was present for some of these transactions they could have consulted with him at any time if they didn't understand the documents the documents themselves are pretty clear about exactly what would happen and you really need look no further than that document just read that certification and there are many documents that also lends to the idea that mr s it may have been the only financial decision available to them at the time but they did agree to the terms and so we find ourselves at the end of the road if they never book conclusion of what those terms are and the lower court got it right and we ask for this court affirm thank you second language is english she was born in the philippines and she lived there for three years so you've got another added factor there that is is that in the record we were not i mean i would have to reverse mortgage put in that i did some research and so on internet and i know that citibank is getting rid of their division of financial freedom and they're getting out of the reverse mortgage business believe there's article in mortgage weekly that said that there is someone off that part of their there and then i know that financial free do