your honors the debtor must be just before he is generous the trustee as this court to reverse the district court in its entirety and to reinstate the judgment of bankruptcy court the following for reasons  for the benefit of the apple he is not proper in this case there transferred an undivided full one half interest in our property on december thirty one two thousand and eight the happily bankruptcy honor in this case did one entity pay for the property and was a title in the bankruptcy name well your honor yes under is that correct well it is there was no down gesture there was no down payment made the debtor and her husband were both jointly on the property and that's the conclusion was the evidence of that will be evidence your honor would be that there is for tax for there was a plat that was  clear and convincing proof that architectural glass wanted to own the property because if it had wanted in the property would deed the property into its own name rather on the steady resulting trust is dated in another person's name correct correct so the fact that it's dated in her name is that that's not supported anything is well i would argue that there is no evidence in the records showing that any point in the future did architectural glass actually want to move in the property it was the intent of the parties that they would use the property on the purchase stalemates in two thousand and one but it was not the into they would i mean the prop but they don't have to show evidence to rebut the presumption you have to show evidence to rebut the presumption if if there's no evidence don't they win because the presumption is for resulting ownership does it i think it does your honor it was told in their name and they treated this is although the corporation didn't pay rent the debtor in the husband still treated this is though it was the same scenario in a similar as the back no no no no wait wait wait wait wait wait what  and some evidence that the city evidence has the c p a said if you set it up this way you can take you can have these tax advantages is there anything that indicates the c p a says actual ownership of the property has to just that on that date the title reflected as if they owned it correct i wouldn't necessarily agree with your honor i would think that but what evidence do you have that this one of the other whatever it is that  hietala this way you can get tax advantages that's not the same as saying shift ownership is reflected in the title is it i think it is your own or it based on why it is i think that that advice entailed giving up ownership of the property rather than just hiding in some way but you have to look at the intent of the parties on the purchase date and i know necessarily flakes actual ownership i think the title and the ownership have a great correlation there but not in a resulting trust i think so your honor no they don't result in choices just the opposite that the title doesn't reflect  donorship understand what you're saying and then we have to is the trustees position then to rebut that in your but that by looking at the act the parties actual intent on a purchase date and it wasn't bankruptcy court had a trial they do yes on the last two days you in applying the clear air standard the bankruptcy court found and the district court similarly found an adopted that in this is you want to pin the extent they're not paragraph for bankruptcy court order and  regard to downer and fishers ownership of the property then this in the property was placed in and remain title in both of their names intentionally that it had any bearing whatsoever on resulting property i'm just focusing on this one sentence the property was placed in and remain title in both of their names intentionally that didn't add anything to our discussion or conclusion as to whether or not there should or should not be a resulting trust right it doesn't it goes to placing it in their names and isn't that what happens under the resulting trust in south carolina when pop properties purchased by one party but deed in the name of another that's all done intentionally i your honor the the baggage is very don't go back to the same answer i'm asking a very specific question the fact that the property was deeded in the name of someone else in no way defeats the theory of a result in trust does it i'm trying to get you to answer my question well i think it was base it was i think that has importance in the bankruptcy court didn't go further to to apply the facts that found in that case but it was intentional is highly cannister they have to go to the next and all parties knew that sentence her entire legal justification is there is no justification for resulting trust when i read that i thought she meant resulting trust somehow in favor of the debtor doesn't that language  seem odd but what does it mean that the information before that all parties knew the defendant made the loan and paid the mortgages why would it well i thought why wouldn't that be evidence at least to be considered why is that no justification how we stand that sentence there is no justification for the self interest is that since have anything to do with the previous defense just goes to show that so there were this property was removed five or six times and i think what she's the bankruptcy court is trying to get to there is that the fact that they had the opportunity each time the between two thousand and one two thousand and four when that property was remortgaged to change ownership and i never happened it intentionally remained in their names that would have been another instance where i think that or exalting trust could have arisen perhaps with each time that a new subsequent transaction occurred but you can't look you know i was to the purchase date may tenth of two thousand  i'd also like to note that the district court erred for three reasons in imposing resulting trust in this case that you know of to the stat only reach all these reasons in the rest of my arguments over llama greece and on my rebuttal to address them that the district are mortgages because the total is in her name so each mortgage that was taken out in two thousand and one two thousand there are several mortgages order there were there was one after the after the property was transferred which is how the bankruptcy court properly assess the value of the debtors interesting property evidence that the company did anything other than they planned to own it the whole time they paid they did everything indicated that he paid all the bills they paid the mortgage they did all of that correct  contribute at all for sale to any payment of any bill it's about oh there's one instance where there's a one thousand dollar repayment from architectural glass to the happily as a reimbursement  was not reimbursed i don't believe there's evidence to that effect and what is the evidence or why she signed the deed on that you were hanging you had to watch the evidence so why she said she that she said that the way anybody said she signed it well it was her testimony at trial on february fourteenth two thousand and twelve that the property was intended for tax purposes i said why she signed the d washy sunday it was in the testimony she did it because a hole has been told  expired if i may just quickly wrap up that one point that i was making is the parties intend district corsair that the district court relied on the plat of april eleventh two thousand and one and all the subsequent improvements in the loans subs seven parties in effect could receive better tax treatment than would have been otherwise received who was and if property it is she was in architecture classes and i guess implicit in what you're saying and really change ownership is there any evidence about that well looking at the record in looking at the testimony mr fiskars affidavit what mr pfister says and say anything he will then change anything in the record indicated change in title necessarily mean a change in ownership there's a record other than the debtor in her husband's testimony does not reflect that ok good let's go to the debtors and her husband's testimony yes from where in that does it say that the ownership is changing separately i mean maybe if i'm not sure that that this is right that title and that is here is not enough but you seem to me to say that the record is more than maybe  point in time for tax or the court the question rather is ok but that point in time for tax you testified to testimonies of text messages decision was made to put the names in the deed in the even individual's names correct ok so that is testimony there that goes to say that i believe what you're asking for why was the property titled as it was and there there's another instance i just want to be sure you understand what it is it is  twelve sixty one twelve fifty one twelve sixty one you're on it who is that that is the debtor on cross examination what what she said the question was why was the court it's not like the question is not quite clear why was tell the court why was the business why did you put your name on the deed was the individual your name your husband's name and the answer was i believe time recommended it for tax reasons i did it for tax reasons yes wrong ended district judge or the bankruptcy judge finding one that is laid out a number for the findings of fact on ten thirty nine is that right that's correct she said based on the and better and faster it could receive tax advantages from this arrangement that's correct your honor and that's a fine thank supported by the record that yes that is supported i believe to the extent i understand your question i believe th away i understand it although it seems to me that's what it comes down to maybe maybe there's some else that's involved here but that's pretty much what it comes down that's really what's at issue your honor and that you agree with that is what you have to finding in fact number four is supported by the record and whether it's survives clear air or reviews yes judge in the only have in that binding is the title the title  testimony to the effect that title was changed from the previous intention to have to do anything with ownership i'm just saying well you also have on thirteen if three is your own what reason what reason did you or did your wife read what reason did you come to me with this in the name of the individual names were you in your wife instructed me that would be in my interest protect protect her so and the other page we also have d credibility problem in her testimony conflicted with things that are written in the schedules in which she didn't have a lot of memory of things that happened so the bankruptcy court properly weighed the evidence and said the credibility of the witnesses in this case  property and how we want to warn and greer south carolina that property that time was completely underdeveloped mr pfister and i'm sure that's all interesting but what i'm mostly interested in is what the note says and the best evidence of what the note says was put in the name of architectural glass or potential glass was soley responsible for the damages property architectural glass made every payment or made the complete every payment only original note the b b and t that your honor is that testimony ride he did that but you sure this testimony as let me say this if we can move on i never saw any testimony about who actually purchased the prop yes there was well there was testimony from from mr festered that not a purchase money mortgage but then they take out a mortgage and pay him back i mean just because you have a mortgage on the property or no on the property and paid that it didn't necessarily tell you who purchased property in the first i through the testimony there was everything that was testified to the documents there were and entered into evidence was there was a general transaction leisure from architectural glass construction who had their own separate checking account the corporation paid all the testimony in this record about what miss easter knew or did about this property or her role in acquiring it paying for it or anything but she had what title there was nothing to record any testimony as to ownership of the property it was you titled this property in these in this manner for tax advantages if not had only if she had owned did own that day by way of title would that change your argument if she it up if she did if title is indicative of ownership on the day that the property was dated does that change or sure about that i'm just wondering is that i was asking the questions because i couldn't find any evidence that she had any ownership function or rights other than mere title us th could be that the courts first of all the district court's decision is entirely inconsistent with the accepting full ownership no resulting trust you can't read the district court decision any differently that can you he said i know what the bankruptcy court found but that is a result interest on of these facts correct yes yes and so i'm asking you now does the fact there might be ownership in the party a necessary defeat a result trust in favor of already be property it's their property and everybody knew it and that's why you can't just done it somehow he will think it's not your property is that the loan the note itself is always made architectural glass yes since the property had been titled in the woman's name she also had to be on the mortgage that's right because you had to have that one hundred eighty degrees from what the bankruptcy court found yes and that one hundred eighty degrees from what the district court fam yeah well yes i went so far as to agree with you we got to  did the bankruptcy court or the district court draw any distinction whatsoever between title and ownership in their findings the district courts are either oh i ask either rob well i fine is the fact in paragraph or the bankruptcy does with that title in their own that is clear error because there's no evidence in the record that there was any ownership interest discussed or transferred when they went to the c p a in the city for tax advantage of tax purposes maybe better  to have said that mr owned the property owned it and so the question is if she owned it could there still be a resultin if contrary to your position she actually did own the property then you would recognize that you live right she had just search legal title you think it with but she did i believe the value of what was transferred is always going to the fire forty eight is always on trust but however in this case as the district court noted you gain equity by payment of a purchase price paying down the mortgage  if there isn't a result even if you lose on the resulting first issue and the court would say she owned the property because of her title to defeat the resulting trust you then look at what is her ownership interest worth  at trial because the fact of the matter is from from day one the better again what is this argument completely separate than the resulting trust i think there's two arguments i think there was also that i mean it's completely separate from the resulting trust i think entitled to zero value from that property yes or no and why is that because see from day one they better had no she was she she she made no payments almost on that i don't know but that's factual your legal argument is she had no the corporation it presents this when this property was bought for seventy four thousand dollars at the date of two thousand and eight data transfer was worth four hundred seventy thousand dollars mr bruce i went testified the reason for that increase in value was do do the exempt we review them for clear error only yes yes and in my understanding of the law to but the factual findings of the ownership is not inconsistent with the dish course legal is just a few issues to clarify first that the intent to must be assessed is that of the purchase date and critically i think something to consider is that also the intent of the purchase date was that she would that the debtor would receive benefits that are commensurate with the ownership she intended to receive or it from the corporation so it's not just that she wanted to have a title in her name but she had an intent to do with the faith that the district court found it was found it was the actual legal intent of the parties for the prop to be used by what do you do with that finding with that finding your honor i think that the resulting trusters prudence requires that you look not the use but the you look at upon it no the other your honor is that we were but by definite clear unequivocal and convincing evidence the imposition of a resulting trust in this case an issue that though but i said how she got it it results in justice how she loses i said how did she get it on the day she acquired type she didn't pay you see just said and i think you're right nothing this record suggests cheating anyway purchased it so it was a gift to her well we would honor we would argue your honor the correct that it can be seen listen tell me your theory of this case how does she acquire ownership she acquires literally she acquires ownership by taking title right and how does she take that what did she do to get that t she didn't pay for it all right correct opt out of gift is there another way you can get i don't it might be if you don't make another claim your claim is she didn't pay for it but she got it so what therefore it was a gift to competing presumption to rebel and the resulting trust when you have a transfer and the property is paid for by a spouse conveyance is taken in another spouse's name we would all we would argue that the trustee would argue that in this case a similar to windsor properties works as dolphin that construction court is it was a gift to her well i think there are two distinct theriot yes or no no your honor how did she get it she didn't purchase she didn't back sign a mortgage to secure the no but just a promise of pain either pay for property is gifted to you which do you good well in this case i think i'm misunderstanding your your question here and what i'm trying to convey is that i mean make it clear how did she acquire the of the elements to impose a gift and to rebut all that is correct get it right in so in that vein in that vein she didn't pay a purchase price but the intent on the date was that she would receive ownership benefits way of by way of attain a name to any way other than the facts of the matter are that in the record she didn't pay the mortgage process therefore you could argue that it was a gift to you can trust people see what i  you yes wrong like you or yes your honor it was so if this is a story again tell me don't don't tell me about the intent at the time of the date this is a separate question tell me your theory this case how is it that she understand i just want to clarify that i got and also that the trustee with trolls to arguments in this case that i meant to withdraw earlier but do not have any bearing on your resulting trust analysis that bifurcate the debtor's interest in this property and so far as resulting trust is not warranted in this case there is no way in which architectural glass can hold any equable interest in the property to thirty try to explain this to an eighth grader go there and tell me why yes your honor will result in trust is a matter of fact and of law it can be imposed where you have one party paid for his prize and for some different reason style in the name of the trust the evidence in the record in the findings of facts are not clear where they support the rebuttal of the resulting trust because the resulting trust does not exist to give equitable title to the apple e in this case the debtor necessarily transferred to the apollyon assembler thirty one entire full undivided one half interest in the property she has to that police must prove that there is a resulting trust in this case to have received if she untitled all the found that but the property was improved correct correct at the sole expense of architectural glass or did they give her with that well the majority of the consideration was actually paid by the banks to which architectural glass became dollars that the mortgage is outstanding on the property or in the amount of three hundred four thousand dollars so the equity existing in the proper utama transfer was one hundred sixty six thousand dollars one half interest of that is eighty three thousand dollars so the debtor receive the bankruptcy court awarded in my opinion a conservative estimate based on just simply splitting the equity eighty three thousand dollars versus the award forty three thousand five hundred dollars i thought you said earlier that all this comes down to whether binding a fact number four by the bankruptcy court clearly a road which was adopted in fact vrba word for word re writ all consistent with that long answer you gave the judge moms about what your position necessarily means it can't be a result of a legal determination as to intent on legal trust do you think the find of fact for necessarily beyond all question precludes a fine the resulting true well in in this case yes or no yes i explained it in this case the bankruptcy court got to ride the district court first found it ok i got you thank you thank you