[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
This case is 25-1078, Ward v. National Credit Systems. Mr. Bodich.

[00:00:05] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Justice. It may please the Court. On behalf of National Credit Systems, I'm John Bodich. I'll frequently refer to National Credit Systems as just NCS.

[00:00:20] Speaker 04:
I do believe that NCS's reply brief supplies sort of the authority and reasoning why the framework advocated by Mr. Ward, the appellee, is neither supported by the FCRA nor the circuit courts that have tackled this issue, which is when you have to determine the obligations of the CRAs and data furnishers such as NCS upon receipt of an indirect dispute that is a dispute that went to the CRAs and then is forwarded to the data furnisher.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
But if you've got any questions about that framework, I'm happy to explain with additional argument.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
The first point I want to stress is the lower court's primary error, which is the trial court failed to find that Mr. Ward's dispute was not an actionable inaccuracy.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
And the first question there is who determines whether or not a particular dispute is an actionable inaccuracy?

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
And that's where the Appalese argument is particularly flawed, is they rely on the jury's determination. They made it a fact question when it's a court that must decide whether or not a claim is actionable.

[00:01:42] Speaker 04:
Examples being like Article III standing or a court that's got to determine sovereign immunity before a government tort claim.

[00:01:53] Speaker 04:
So that being a question of law, that was the lower court's error that we primarily want to stress today, which is they had the opportunity at the summary judgment stage, the pretrial stage.

[00:02:08] Speaker 04:
We even argued it at the motion and lemony stage. And then again, of course, at the 50A motion and 50B motion, all being the same thing. The trial court is the one that had to decide whether or not this was an actionable inaccuracy.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
All right, counsel, help me with this. In terms of this actionable inaccuracy, you say we should apply the standard of objectively and readily verifiable?

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
Tell me about the odyssey of that standard. It starts when the furnisher sends the matter to the CRA, right?

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
it has to comply with that standard of objectively and readily verifiable. In order to send it properly to the, excuse me, to send it initially, the collection issue, notice to the CRA, right?

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
So going from the debtor or the consumer to the CRA, CRA to the data furnisher, and it's whether or not The debt of furniture has an obligation to perform a reasonable investigation. It all depends on whether or not it's a dispute that's capable.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
Here's the odyssey I want you to trace for me. You have the furniture supplying information to the CRA about a debt.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
And then you have a dispute that goes to the CRA and they send it back to the furnishers.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
and then the furniture has to look into it as an investigation, right?

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
Okay. Does this standard of objectively and readily verifiable apply from the initial furniture, sending it as a collection matter, notification of a collection matter to CRA, through the whole investigation process? Does that standard apply?

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
And if I understand your question, at the outset, before there's any dispute, when the data furnisher is supplying the information to the CRAs, to the consumer reporting agencies?

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
Through the whole odyssey of this thing, from the furnishing of the collection matter to the CRA, through the reasonable investigation that your client had to make after the dispute was registered. Do you apply that same standard throughout this whole odyssey?

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
No, I wouldn't say that's accurate.

[00:04:54] Speaker 04:
That standard applies once there's a dispute being made because then that's the standard that applies whether or not it's an actual inaccuracy.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
So when the dispute is made, that standard does apply?

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
That's when it should apply, yes.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
And that's at the same time, where it's generated the need for a reasonable investigation, right?

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
If it is an actionable inaccuracy, yes.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
Well, but you judge whether it's an actual inaccuracy by all the things that come in from the disputant.

[00:05:31] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
Which, in this case, went through July 2020, correct?

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
I know it's that summer, yes, if that's the correct year.

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
That sounds to me like you're saying, in effect, the standard of objectively and readily verifiable applies from the beginning of the problem through the reasonable investigation.

[00:06:02] Speaker 04:
In your example, yes. Correct. Because that's how you're going to determine whether or not you have the information right. to know whether it's capable of being verified.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
So everything that the disputant submits in the dispute, and I think it goes up through July 2020, your client was required to look at it under this standard.

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:06:25] Speaker 00:
All right. And I take it that what their judgment was is that this was either a Father assisting a daughter or a father who's unwilling to turn on her.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
And that's why under, whether you use the standard that's just been developed in the last three, four years by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 11th, or you use the standard that had been applied by almost all the remaining circuits before, same result.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
Closing arguments.

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
in the opening you talked about the conspiracy that he was an active participant and in closing gears were switched and you went to he didn't want to rat on his daughter that was my reading of the opening and closing is that correct?

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
Not far off, and part of that was because of the court's unwillingness to perform the function it's required to, as well as the instructions that she wouldn't give. And so certainly our strategy had to change during the trial, but it doesn't change what the standard should be or how it should be applied.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
Okay. So there's a...

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
Again, going back to Judge Murphy's odyssey, there's been a complaint by a consumer of inaccurate data, and then that triggers a duty under the statute by your client to conduct a reasonable investigation of those allegations, right?

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
If it is an actionable inaccuracy, yes.

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
And what is an actionable inaccuracy?

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
Think of it as one that... Should it be under Tenth Circuit law?

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
Sure, and that's where the standard comes in. If it's capable of being decided by objective facts and documents, then you can decide it, and it is an actionable... And if it's not, there's no duty for a reasonable investigation.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
You don't even get to that... Correct. ...point.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
So under your view, could a furnisher just...

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
choose not to believe affidavits of identity theft basically at any time and just say, what, gosh, I can't. This could be untruthful or conspiratorial, so I can't go there.

[00:09:07] Speaker 04:
If it relies just on the veracity of the consumer.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
then in that situation, yes, but you're going to still have to look at the totality of the circumstances. What documents and information are available to you? So if you go to like a typical identity theft, you're going to have that, right, which is typically whether by a police report or identity theft, you're going to have some testimony or protestation from the consumer that this was identity theft. But in normal identity theft cases, there are certain markers that are objectively and readily verifiable, such as a mismatched ID, a mismatched signature, no connection at all between the consumer, the victim, and whoever, some unknown third party who obtained the debt or the services, right?

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
And so normally on an identity theft case, there are markers you can find, and they absolutely are objectively and readily verifiable. So that even though it also relies on a statement that, hey, this is identity theft and it's not mine, the other circumstances around it show that it is objectively and readily verifiable.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
This case is just the atypical identity fraud case, right? Which is, you've got family fraud involved.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
You've got, even in his own source... Did you, if, in a hypothetical...

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
If Mr. Ward had said, he said it was identity theft, and even he could believe it was a theft, albeit by his daughter, would the investigation have gone differently if he had said, my daughter stole my ID, and that's how this happened? Would the investigation, should it have gone differently there?

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
Well, I would say in the situation that did play out, this is an easy case to reverse and render. In the situation that you've presented, it does get into more of a gray area that would be more difficult, yes. It still, in that case, would rely, if that's all you have is just the statement you said, then it is relying on his credibility, and that would be an inactionable, that would not be an actionable inaccuracy, but if there were other circumstances around it that supported objectively his statement that my daughter just stole my ID, here's how it happened.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
What about pay stubs from Neiman Marcus with his name?

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
And I definitely... And I appreciate that question, Justice Murphy, because that's where...

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
The sides particularly differ. The question has got to be, did Mr. Ward give a copy of his Colorado driver's license to his daughter to assist her in getting an apartment? All this, what they call the overwhelming corroborating evidence, none of it corroborates whether or not he gave his ID to his daughter to help her get a house. None of it does. All those other things just show that they were part of the fraudulent schemes. didn't even mark his pay stuff, the fact that he lives in Colorado, all those different things that they claim are corroborating evidence, none of it bears on the question of what was the purpose he gave his ID to his daughter.

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
And the fact that he didn't, like Mr. Murphy said, the fact that he didn't cop to the fact that she was the one in the apartment, which was glaringly clear from the lease application and his own admissions... That was her telephone number as the contact telephone number. And the fact that they had matching IDs.

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
When Mr. Ward disputed the report, did NCS call him and ask him about it?

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
No, and that's... I mean, why wouldn't your client pick up the phone and call NCS Mr. Ward, and if they suspected that Mr. Ward's daughter was involved, why didn't they pick up the phone and call her?

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
And that seems like an objective, that would objectively and readily verify the information. And you still have your credibility defense, I suppose, but

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
In that situation, if they had done both of those things, it still just relies on the veracity of their statements. There's no objective evidence there. It's just her supporting his story, perhaps, right? It's a statement against interest. It would be. She's admitting to a crime. And, of course, and this played out, like during discovery, we tried to get her testimony. I mean, there was an entirely different proceeding in Texas to try to get it. She was actually ordered to testify in Texas, violated that court order, and refused to ever testify.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
And so that did happen, but not until the discovery phase of the lawsuit, which is another reason why this one couldn't be an actionable inaccuracy. If it takes the type of investigation that you're talking about, where you're going and you're interviewing witnesses, right, that falls directly under Robertson hold in that that that's not a case that would that would be an actionable inaccuracy they call her and she might say yeah, I I Did it to help my lease application?

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
Then you could say that Mr.. Wood was no longer flameworthy That would have resolved it in one direction.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, certainly. I did want to try to reserve some time Although I'm about out of time

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
Let me use up your time for you.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
One of your positions is it's the obligation of the district court to require the showing of a case up front that need to do that.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
Is that 12 v. 6 stuff? I mean,

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
So certainly, so... Is that how you get at it? So if it was on the pleading stage, then obviously it's at one standard, but the court can do it at the pleading stage at 12B6.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
This is a court who is dealing with all kinds of different things. You know, statutes like we were dealing with in the previous case. It's incumbent upon the lawyers to say, okay, they need to establish a prime official case. Now...

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
Do you do that at 12 v.

[00:15:42] UNKNOWN:
6?

[00:15:44] Speaker 04:
That would be the first opportunity for the defendant to bring it to the court.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
Do you do that in this case?

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
No, they waited and did it at the MSJ stage, which is when I think it would normally happen. But it can, if it's clear by the pleadings.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
When did they raise it for the first time, the private official case requirements?

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
At the MSJ stage. And at that point, they were arguing the objective and readily verifiable standard hadn't been developed at that time, so they were using the old standard, which was factual versus legal.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
It's very clear from the summary judgment papers that NCS was saying they need to establish a prima facie case, and they haven't done so.

[00:16:24] Speaker 04:
By claiming that this was a legal dispute, that's precisely what they were doing.

[00:16:29] UNKNOWN:
All right.

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
Let's hear from Mr. Ward.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors. Matt Osborne for Robin Ward.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
There's three important points that I want to make.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
Number one, the text of the FCRA in 1681 S2B says a furnisher shall investigate upon receiving notice from a credit bureau, and there's no exceptions to that.

[00:17:04] Speaker 01:
NCS is essentially asking the court to write an exception into the statute that says you don't have to investigate unless it's readily and objectively verifiable.

[00:17:17] Speaker 03:
There are quite a few other circuits that require precisely that, don't they? The 9th, 4th, 1st, and 11th?

[00:17:29] Speaker 01:
They have adopted that standard, but I don't know that they've gone that far to say you don't have to investigate at all. I think it turned more on the fact that all of those cases involved legal disputes. For example, the 11th Circuit Holden case, none of those cases are identity theft. So Holden was a case where a person admitted they bought a timeshare and they presented legal defenses why they didn't know the money. It wasn't available as often as I wanted.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
Or you look at the Wright case from the Tenth Circuit, where the person admits, yes, my business owed the money, but I don't personally owe it, and the credit bureau should have hired a tax professional expert as part of their investigation.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
I think Judge Babcock in his summary judgment order got it right. He said the way that you look at this is, is this legal? Are you making a legal defense or are you making a factual defense? Here, there is no unresolved legal question to resolve. Everybody agrees if you're a victim of fraud, you don't owe the money. So it's really a simple question as is.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Did this person sign the lease or authorized to sign the lease, which are fundamentally factual questions.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
I do also want to point out that... Well, before you move on, you wanted to focus on the investigation.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
Now, what NCS says is that all these things you list the investigation should have indicated that there were real problems with this and they better back off. You mentioned the pay stubs at Neiman Marcus, Social Security letter, the IP address, etc. That whole list.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
But all of that is dependent on the credibility of Mr. Ward as to his daughter being involved. Was he in cahoots with her or was he an unknowing victim of her?

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
And that never happens.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
Your client never put forward anything to help on that.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
How do I deal with that?

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
So as a preliminary matter, He did not know it was the daughter until we got into discovery. We actually found out literally the last day of discovery.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
Wait a minute. The Neiman Marcus stuff, that didn't tip him off that this was his daughter? He knew that the tenant, didn't he know that the tenant was a female?

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
He didn't know that.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
They knew that. They knew that? Okay.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
He knew that the phone number that was used was not his, but then the emergency number was hers. He knew that, didn't he?

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
He found that out after the lawsuit was filed. He didn't have access to this information.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
He didn't have access to the application?

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
It's in the application, I believe.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
I don't believe that he did, because I recall we had to subpoena the apartment to get it.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
So... They had provided him some information over the phone, but he didn't have all of this information.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
Well, okay, so you're saying he had the phone information.

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
I don't believe that he... I'm pretty sure that the record indicates that he was given access to the application, and just assume he did, and that indicated the phone number was the number of his daughter. Well... Talking about red flags, isn't that a red flag for him?

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
If that was the case, then yes.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
But he wasn't... Didn't the landlord sue him in Texas and get a judgment?

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
They got a... It was never served on him, but yes, they got a no-answer default judgment.

[00:21:54] Speaker 01:
But I think as one of the most important points was as Judge Babcock... Before you go there, though...

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
if it turns out, as I believe it is, that during the dispute stage he had access to the application or at least knew that the emergency phone number was his daughter's, then does that doom your case?

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
I don't believe so, Your Honor, because he gave them a lot of information that would show that it was verifiable that it was fraud.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
I think, first of all... Well, wait a minute. Okay. Under my hypothetical, he knows his daughter's involved in this.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
And part of his submission on the dispute, he needs to come forward, doesn't he? And say, well...

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
She had my driver's license and everything because of this desire to apply for life insurance, to make me a beneficiary of her life insurance.

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
But I wasn't involved in it. She stole my stuff.

[00:23:05] Speaker 00:
Wasn't he obligated to do that?

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
If he knew that it was her the whole time, that would certainly go into reasonableness.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
And he would know that if he knew...

[00:23:17] Speaker 00:
that the emergency number on the application was her phone number?

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
Well, the testimony was that she had told him that she was also a victim of fraud, so he thought that she was also defrauded in some way.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
And this came out before trial?

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
This came out during the trial as part of his testimony.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
We're talking about the reasonable investigation stage.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
So assume...

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
that he did know that was her emergency number.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
Doesn't he, isn't he obligated as part of his dispute to say, oh my gosh, that's my daughter. She stole my ID.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
If the facts were that he knew it was her, then he should have said that. I don't think the facts show that he knew it was her. As Judge Babcock found in this MSJ order, They never considered that the daughter was involved during the investigation. That was a litigation position that they came up with after the case was filed.

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
Well, it's not that something they came up with. It was the truth, right?

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
Sure, but I mean that they were not considering that as part of their investigation.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
So their investigation was...

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
They went back to... I thought I saw some information that during the investigation that that's exactly what they suspected.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
I don't believe so, Your Honor. I think there was no evidence of that because we have their notes and it shows what they did. There's no mention of the daughter at all. I don't want to consume all your time.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
There's a recent case out of the 11th Circuit, Razov v. Bank of America case. You familiar with that one? And that involved, I think, identity theft, an allegation of fraud. But the court there found that because the court said that the furniture did not have to take the complainant at his word because that would generate a credibility determination that was not readily and objectively verifiable.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
Yes. Doesn't that establish a pretty decent precedent that might help the position they're taking? And how would you rebut it?

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
Well, I am familiar with the case, Your Honor. In that case, that was the only evidence they had. It was actually the consumer did open the credit card, but they alleged that there was fraudulent purchases.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
And the bank determined that those purchases were made in person, chip to chip. and that the chip couldn't be duplicated. And they asked the consumer, have you lost your credit card? And they said, no, it's been in my possession. Consumer provided no other evidence such as whereabouts that day or anything. So literally all they had was the consumer's word. Here, they had so much more than his word. They had pay stubs of his real employer. He gave him his employer's name, said you can call him.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
But that doesn't negate The fact that he, his daughter is using this information and he knows it.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
Well, he didn't know it then. He certainly never authorized her to do it. And this is not, the factual record shows this is not an atypical situation. Their own expert admitted that what's called friendly fraud, which is often family members, business partners, spouses. It happens all the time. And it's probably 25%, 30% of the fraud out there. And the banks and everybody still considers it to be fraud.

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
At what point did he deny that he'd ever, if I remember correctly, didn't he deny that he'd that his driver's license and Social Security card had never been outside of his possession?

[00:27:40] Speaker 01:
I don't recall that. I recall him stating that his daughter had told him she needed his license to add him to her life insurance.

[00:27:53] Speaker 03:
And when did that come out?

[00:27:58] Speaker 01:
It was at trial, because they didn't take his deposition.

[00:28:02] Speaker 03:
There was no deposition of Mr. Ward?

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:28:05] Speaker 03:
or the daughter.

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
I think the other thing that's important is the 11th Circuit's opinion in Hinkle versus Midland. It talks about how when you get notice that somebody's disputing as a data furnisher, you have three choices. You can either verify and say, yes, this is correct, Or you can respond and say the consumer's correct and it needs to be changed. Or you can say we can't verify. And the 11th Circuit said if you say we can't verify, it's a safe harbor.

[00:28:47] Speaker 01:
You can't be sued.

[00:28:50] Speaker 01:
NCS had the option to simply say we can't verify. And that would have been a safe harbor. We wouldn't even be here.

[00:28:59] Speaker 01:
Every single time they chose to respond that they had in fact verified that it was correct when they did not and So what happens to the data if they say we can't verify that it goes off the credit report?

[00:29:15] Speaker 01:
In most situations yes But there's you know they're not required to report anything about anybody. It's a completely voluntary process now they say that A consumer can simply go file a lawsuit and get a judgment that they're correct and that they don't owe the money.

[00:29:36] Speaker 01:
But even then, there's a case pending in the District of Colorado where a consumer did exactly that, got a state court judgment that they didn't know, NCS still kept reporting it, and now they're saying reading the judge's order would not be objectively and readily verifiable. So the problem is this standard would would create no, identity theft victims would have no remedy then, because they could never get this off their report. The FCRA preempts all state laws as it relates to furnishers, so you can't sue for defamation or negligence or anything.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
So if you don't have some recourse under the FCRA, there's no hope for these people, and there's so much identity theft, there has to be some remedy I would also note that Congress never contemplated requiring a consumer to bring a lawsuit saying they're correct before they could file a dispute and have an FCRA case, because it has a two-year statute of limitations, which isn't told while you would do that process.

[00:30:53] Speaker 01:
And so the only precondition for In S2B cases that you notify the credit bureau first and then that they notify the furniture.

[00:31:04] Speaker 01:
I think their argument that the trial court didn't make a finding is a harmless error because the jury already found it at a higher standard. But to the extent that your honors believe that's an error, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING AND UPHOLD THE JURY'S VERDICT.

[00:31:29] Speaker 03:
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. MR. BODITCH, YOU MAY HAVE A MINUTE.

[00:31:38] Speaker 03:
CAN YOU TELL ME IN YOUR OPINION WHAT MR. WARDEN KNEW PRIOR TO TRIAL ABOUT THE CREDIT APPLICATION?

[00:31:45] Speaker 04:
Yeah, as soon as the consumer – he disputed it directly with NCS. As soon as that happens under the FPCPA, you've got to then send the consumer your support, your verification for the debt. NCS did that. They sent him the entire – what the – lease packet was, which was the lease application and all the supporting documents. He had that application and all the supporting documents, the pay stubs and everything else, which is how he knew to talk about that information in his ID theft report.

[00:32:16] Speaker 04:
It would be impossible that he would have known about the Neiman Marcus pay stubs and everything else unless he had gotten those documents from NCS at the time he did his ID theft report. So to your point, absolutely he knew all that information.

[00:32:30] Speaker 00:
And that's why... The Neiman Marcus stubs were in that package?

[00:32:36] Speaker 04:
Yes. So he got the entire lease package, which is the lease application. It was the SS... Social Security letter.

[00:32:41] Speaker 00:
Mm-hmm.

[00:32:43] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:32:45] Speaker 03:
Did he have notice of the landlord's lawsuit?

[00:32:50] Speaker 04:
It indicates that he was personally served. That's the only thing. It's evident if you just read that form. Eviction judgment it does say that that the occupant was was personally served right and he's listed as the occupant he's Right, so I it says personally served I meant It was I would love to address a few more of his points. I think you're out of time. They appreciate it I appreciate it just says. Thank you.

[00:33:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you counsel your excuse in the case is submitted and