all right we'll try to get this they had entered into a guarantee of the purchase price for forty eight million dollars in april two thousand and seven the carlson's paid two million dollars as part of the initial investment they had paid also a five hundred thousand as part of the  here and he and was part of the suit he paid one hundred fifty thou involving investors or the clients could determine whether or not they have damages and determine that their end result in a situation that they're not in that such as you have a settlement investor that results in x y or investor getting into i was in the or of legal proceedings tax whether or not he actually has a monetary loss so he had a personal injury case i don't think that you could have i don't see how that would apply to his it assumes that there is an underlying now that case so you first have a case you're brought into because you didn't pay enough taxes or because somebody says you own money because he was mad or whatever reason and then the practice of how court said the case against an attorney is premature because we don't even know there's damages that are going to be that plaintiff that the agency is going to incur until we know the outcome of the first case the transaction was us structured in two faced there was supposed to be an initial closing it was going to occur neighborhood two thousand and seven and a final closing that was going to occur in october of two thousand the initial closing  ever got the refinancing going they defaulted on the note in october of two thousand and seven and the deal never finally closed and almost the transaction never was finally counseling by the time that occurred in october of two thousand and seven the plaintiffs in this case mark carlson rock carlson had already put two and a half million dollars into the deal the time that that happened that that he felt heard in october of two thousand and seven plan to time then had already put five hundred thousand dollars enforce this forty eight million dollars promissory note in guarantees against all of the parties my client joe leckie and the plaintiffs in this case several years later in july two thousand and ten this case was filed in which the plaintiffs allege that mr lack testified that before the critical day he knew that the elemental g contract that had been executed was a quote completely onerous terrible contract totally mr years experience he within days of signing the element of the transaction insurance start running until two thousand and eleven the problem with an argument is that there's nothing to support it in the raptor in fact the record in this case if you look for page sixteen of the record that's the initial complaint that was filed in this case  until the years of litigation settles in two thousand lebanese simply wrong he also testified that before the critical day he knew both the true value of the n l l l l g properties and the heat and existence of the financing on these properties were were not true he testified that he would leave two thousand and seven that this transaction quote was not so going the way it was supposed to go because quote money was just being expensed left and right in light of these missions it's clear and the testimony is under spirited that they had knowledge of their claims before the critical they liked it the attempts by the plaintiffs on appeal to delay the running get them by the time that october two thousand and seven flows in doesn't occur and by the time they put in that two and a half million dollars for the carlson's and the five hundred thousand dollars for the band for the band that's in two thousand and seven their damages are already already exist also they knew that they had been damaged before that here's excel because they've been sued unconditional here in the city of a forty eight million dollar promissory in fact their own complaint in this case contradicts their theory i don't feel that the carlson testified that by may two thousand and eight he did he had knowledge that both that he had not properly represented the deal to him and that there was quite a substantial amount of fraud in this transaction likewise mr robert carlson said when he testified that he knew in mid two thousand and seven that you had misrepresented the status of financing on these problems so it's clear from the evidence and the test one of those undisputed that there is no reliance by the defendants or by the plaintiffs on anything that argument is forfeited with respect to daniel here thinks it cannot now ask you to reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of mr me mr mcateer and a basis that was not considered by the trial if this court looks duty to and not lie and the illinois cases are very there is that circumstances only been extended in cases of wills and trusts where there are intended beneficiaries of because of birth control pills and she alleged her physician was guilty of not practicing didn't let her know the real reason for the problems and the supreme court there said silence between