the trial court a complaint was filed against the defendants for violation of residential real problems for your act based on the fact that they provided a disclosure form pursuit in the sale of issue which allegedly had some material the facts  leave the sales contract was executed between the appellant inferential relocation after some surface issues and other issues relating to that ultimately the apple we got into the case and filed a motion to dismiss based on section fifteen eighty seven of the act which creates an exception to its applicability to a transfer from the relocation company to a buyer also believe the trial court granted the motion to dismiss th reliance by prospective buyers the case was clear that buyers are entitled to rely on this form and the idea is that the form is created so that people can lie around it and simultaneously is in that allows their minds which are the credit penalty provisions provid one section fifty five the act in finally the trial court's opinion requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of relocation company in these kinds of situations realistically relocation company is nearly conduit or an intermediary for the actual seller in the language of the act as well to the purpose and intent reflects that as a result of the points i'm going to be arguing to your honor's today is that first of all the actual plane  only provision to attach to that form and simultaneously this requires that the actual seller of the partners hire the relocation company for sale is ultimately held liable in finally this request the legislature's when the legislature drafting the statute in a way which makes clear midweek the legislature recognize that relocation companies don't live in the property they don't have knowledge about property and it provides a scheme whereby the relocation compan still needs to make sure that the actual seller provides the information in providing lead to school reform executed by the seller is a condition precedent to solution of why ability for the relocation o so the idea is that the relocation company provides a form executed by the seller which the seller has an obligation to be truthful on in which the seller potentially can be liable for lying on that form and so long as the real cation company provides that  company to the body which means that the relocation company is not required to actually queue a form which is the main obligation created under yeah under that transfer  relocation of any when title transfers from the seller to the relocation and then pursued in terms of the act under the transfer from the relocation company to the buyer that form executed by the seller then needs to be we stick that it does not apply to a transfer from a relocation company to a buyer but again your honor i would submit that ultimately that mechanical reading of the statute essentially makes provision of the form a meaningless ultimately the legislature isn't time with with providing this under a mechanical reading of the stache you are saying that doesn't apply and therefore the form carries no penalties makes provision of the form a pointless  but the only reasonable reading of the statute is that alternately the legislature intended that the relocation company has not lived in the property does not have knowledge of the property and frankly required you relocation company to on and that reliance isn't forced by don't you provisions of section fifty five which attach to the form which is provided by the relocation  however the statute and the legislature by creating these these obligations under the act i did not intend to create a scheme simply providing for additional proof that can be used in the common law fraud case and in fact penalties or issues that attach with it also believe that simply does not make sense based on the very fact that the statute provides that the form be provided and under any reasonable analysis reading of the statute simply does not make sense that the legislature require that this form be provided while simultaneously saying well if you provide the form you do have to provide before but  the form has no force in a factor in whether the actual seller wise on the form is of no moment and doesn't matter that reading simply does not make sense i would point out as well that the act specifically responsibility over property so well conjunction essentially what the statute is saying is to say if you're just recognizing that the actual seller in the street is actually is the party who is required to execute residential were propert  closure and alternate we however the legislature recognize that a relocation company logistically has an occupied the property is simply acting as a well we want to make sure that the seller is held liable even though the contract is between the relocation company in the buyer we want to provide a scheme that the seller is still responsible because they are the true self interest was briefly your hono in the motion to dismiss alleged and there is no dispute about this that the relocation company sensually gave the fair market value for property to the apple we so that they could ultimately relocate simply took on the sales sensually they act as a my name's john irving on the right for the are always is our position in this case that the general sampling has decided what type of transfers the act is not appliances and the general assembly has chosen a number of different transfers mean that transfer should apply between a relocation company to weigh a product the express language of the statute provides the transfers purchaser so all that would take out any anger from this particular situation the fact that it's the if the statute intended to remove any liability on the relocation company they could have done it by simply exempting relocation company from liability under the act they legislators that wanted real quotation company to be liable and others did not want that so they had to compromise and the language they chose was to example transfer rather than  no i don't sell but i believe under this particular statute it's the this transfer is not the sign of pot under the act the law action because now they're on record they've said something in writing so it can be used in some other action under it rather than under the disclosure act the case law states that are proprieties that  but that is not in this particular case i believe the clear language of the statute is that this transfer is not covered under the act despite an argument that it doesn't fit the or those instances where something only happens maybe once a year if a person buys a property and it's something only happens once you're going to house for it for instance spring rains and the builder of the house ropes and drain farm drain tiles and only happens once a year if that's not disclosed and there's flooding perhaps one of your stash limitations is out not enough because the new buyer doesn't have enough time place to look for what kind of force or fact that form has is the statute itself section fifty five is clear that any person not just the seller but and specifically states any person bad law is on the form or doesn't comply with other obligations freeda by the act is liable for the penalties provided for in section fifty five the only reasonable reading of this is that the legislature intended to exclude liability as to the relocation company in the grain it could have been done a better job of doing so all right as we probably wouldn't be here today but ultimately the the statute is clear that it does not apply to the transfer from the relocation company so long as the form is provided in the act specifically states that any wise or any information that is is falls on the form and usually has liability as described by section fifty five  transfer between the relocation company in the bottle and again by creating this exception in fifteen a sudden i would point out that it's the only exception that does still require provisional before and that reflects the legislatures in tatton recognizing that the position that relocation companies have because again they're there simply acting as a as a conduit an intermediary or a broker and they take  title to the property so that they can take on the logistics of actually selling the property and those kinds of things will somebody else is being relocated but ultimately the true seller is the person from whom these are title from and the statute is essentially creating a exception to the acts applicability with respect to only the transfer from the relocation company to the buyer however the form still does have the penalties which attach to it and ultimately that reading is the