valid and final judgment was entered by the state court specifically appellant requests in this appeal of this court reversed the lower court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the respondent h s b c for two important reasons the argument actually because we don't have that much time so i'm assuming that there was an error and it should have been claimed reclusion he used it through how we can be confident the crudity requirement is that absolutely and that's really the remote has no interest in the house anymore i don't see how fremont would still be in pretty at that point so it does seem like we need to know whether freema was still in the picture or not because earlier they didn't have an interest that was the same as bill later people intrusion and it seems like we may have a gap in the records i'm just trying to figure out what we do about that gap sure well and it does present an interesting problem with what you said you know you characterize it as a gap in the record what we do have in the record is indications th sold the bank why and so very much is completely out of the picture that they have no interest in defending this to court action and the whole point of a claim preclusion is and pretty is was the party in the same position that they have the same interest as the later party and solid perspectives you know back in two thousand and fourteen fremont was indicated as the current holder and again because mergers is explicitly there to avoid public recordings right we don't know exactly if the know or do you trust the been asked along or  that transfer of interest of the part of transfer of interest from mergers the default judgment that was entered against fremont had already been recorded it was in fact recorded not to over two thousand and fourteen and so at that time what h s b c should have done and what the proper course of action would have been would be to seek to satisfy all judgment and importantly i'll try not to be too long winded in my answer but importantly what if i start says that those types of deficiencies even though it may you know and a couple acknowledgements i'd like to make to this court to start that the st being we do recognize that the district court may have erred in referring to claim preclusion but then addressing an element of issue preclusion in its re stage we heard from a pal and that that he has a line of cases saying that there is pretty between three months and h s b c because they have a quote unquote record here so that the sufficiently close relationship as set forth in the in re schimmel case requires that the non party has succeeded so the prior parties interest the non party has controlled the original suit or the non party's interests was adequately represented in the prior suit but here it none of those relationships exist and certainly no evidence in the appellate record to show residing i understand that in the state court action really murderers should have been named and it wasn't so i think there was an error in this the court judgement but we have the five star case th edelstein explains that in nevada the note and the deed of trust because the two separate documents they after origination they can be split they can be transferred separately they can be assigned two completely different entities and the only time they're ever required to be reunified is at the time the foreclosure so and again when we're talking about title to real property in nevada then about a supreme court and i'll point this court to the two thousand and nineteen resources repaste has confirmed that the relevant line of inquiry is a beneficial interest it's the beneficiary of record holder made a valid tender of the super priority of mine that they would preserve their mortgage interest and it from the district court regarding the tender protecting a deed of trust is uncontested on appeal if that is a binding judgement from the district court and i'd also i did submit a supplemental authority to the court  it it's not an analysis of whether it's wrong it's an analysis of whether it's a valid prior tender me prior default judgment so even if that default judgment exists and interest from them they're entitled to bring a new lawsuit and simply disregard that default judgment that has absolutely no force and effect so does that call absence of the previous point really the only issue here is the groovy point you're on a suite we would of the issues that was in my mind as to what the stakes were there on the various foreclosures for and that is if we look at for example the montana versus united states