counsel please come forward and identify yourself but it was not  the problem with this issue is that when that there are when to do a bankruptcy that's ernie willy and i thought i really end up making a difference in the end i mean that wasn't well with one exception wasn't the bankruptcy court able to figure out what actually happened the exception is you thought there was a property in maryland and a mortgage on marriage maryland property i got was wrong but that that's i don't think really ends up mattering and that he despite the problems with a petition the bankruptcy judge was able to figure out that the the the facts what actually happened right i mean i mean he did i mean but that things that  evolved particularly in federal court the court said well it isn't sufficient just to come up and say well i don't accept any of that is true i deny all of that you have to come forward in response to a satisfactory case you have to come forward with factual allegations that show that these are issues are at material issues are at play at issue in the case and and i think this is what my colleague is asking you about which is can you tell us in the record where you put in evidence an af and she was a low level income person dealing only with the daily financial issues and there was pl is a pretty big problem i guess yes it was a big problem for her so but again here's my let me stop you on that to be my problem the solvency for purposes of the statute is assets minus liability and that's the statute says that the statute says if your assets are are great and are less than your liabilities you're insolvent and there's a sort of a shortcut to proving that by showing that the person is not paying the debts but the ability to pay debts doesn't circumstances because  interesting i wanted to make three points today and first that the appeal is constitutionally moot second that the appeal is equitably moot and to the extent that we need to get into the merits of the underlying appeal there was no reversible error party here is the good faith purchaser who is already out was one possibility of the relief it could be granted is not upset the sale you know leave that sale standing but because the trust you still has the net proceeds after i've presumably after paying your sales expenses and probably the mortgage there's some money left which has not been distributed maybe she could be given that money if she prevails on the merits well then that would just prejudice the estate and its creditors which is not an innocent party necessary and if that's a different question right well i mean i don't know if we are here to decide whether or not the state and its crew are you raise the point of an innocent party that would be the purchaser would not be the estate it just doesn't matter to the i mean that's a different question well the trustee is look at what somebody who was not a prime actor in this matter did and whether they had relied on other actions and whether they were otherwise strangers to the process and those are the folks who get protected i'm not saying that the trustee wouldn't be unhappy and wouldn't you know on some level be a great but they're not i mean they don't fit into the innocent party analysis to me at all and i also think it's somewhat circular because you're saying you know we did our job we void of the fraudulent  appeal is whether the fraudulent transfer should have been avoided in the first place of the trustees doing her job that's not the issue but i don't think that makes someone so innocent that you're insulated from any effects of a potentially wrong i guess i would i would go back to the test of her mortgage is limited because the the actual the two prong test is whether state was size and whether substantial consummation has occurred so that's the equitable minister asked so whether or not that you know glossing over mortgages ltd you could attach the proceeds and return the back on the merits of the underlying stay there was the appeal of the fraudulent transfer action and then it was possible for this appeal to address whether or not ms president get the property back up until fourteen days after october when the sailor was entered is present could have then appealed the sale she didn't do that she didn't seek a stay pending appeal of the sale and so that that is significant and i think you know she's been given a lot of opportunities to exercise her rights she is literally said to the bankruptcy court if a state grant a stay pending appeal is not granted then i will never have my issues heard i  will never get the property back so she had the opportunity she didn't do it and under mortgages limited i think that's dispositive i also question whether we're properly here because as i mentioned the sale order is the order to appeal at this point and this is that the fraudulent transfer action was whether or not the trustee was entitled to use sell or at least property about's already been died so the proper thing to do at that point was to question the sale and so when the appellant says well there was in good faith and we need to look at this case called  laurie i think that's inappropriate because i think that is a collateral attack sale order which was not appealed and that attack is now time barred i would also note that was about a motion f reconsideration of a compromise dismissing claims and it was distinguished from a sale order in a case called a deli which was a sale of claims here we're not discussing whether or not the sale was appropriate we're discussing on its face whether or not the fraudulent transfer action was appropriately decided so i think that's not i think we're properly here on that matter and i would we're not on we're not here in the question of whether the authorization under three sixty three b was appropriate were here on whether the fraudulent transfer action was appropriately decided in so i think that when we go back to constitutional newness the question is court do something with respect to the fraudulent transfer action that makes a difference and i get i guess it i guess perhaps there could be some kind of attachment but i think i think we're not here on whether or not this it was appropriate we're here on with the fraudulent transfer was appropriately and i move you on to the merits and this is an unusual case where we have a summary judgment on the actual intentional fraudulent transfer claim i mean normally a summary judgment on a question of intent is improper why was it ok in this case because we had substantial overwhelming evidence in the record of fraudulent inten and we look at beverly where there was the really substantial circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent the court found that there were seven factors seven veges of fraud present and i would just point the court back to beverly to prevail and the evidence offered to great issues of fact was insufficient is a matter of law yes your honor i thank you for clarifying that and the end the december why that's true and i mean i'm not saying it's true you tell me why it's true well we pointed to all of the all of the all of the reasons why a private fashion case was set and so then the burden shifted to the party discipline to show that there was either some supervening purpose or that there was a genuine issue of material fact and the five issues that were raised were neither genuine or material the first one was when the transfer was made and that this court clearly said in in re airing that the time of the that transfers me to when it is perfected under state law so that was in two thousand and fourteen which was within the two year each period so that's not a genuine issue it's an issue of law no fact finder could find in favor of any party on an issue of  law second then the question of whether the debtor retained a beneficial interest in the property will the dispute is o of the debtor and somebody else retained an interest but that doesn't change the question of whether the debtor retained an interest so that's not a genuine know let's go to trial on that the court he and i have a link which here it says the nonmoving party must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts the nonmoving party must come facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and that was in done it was just an objection interposed into the record and the court considered it in tonight it and then the question is whether that was beyond the pale and certainly that wasn't the case then there was a question of whether there was a debt existing at the time of the transfer at around the time of the transfer and whether there was preposition litigation in the dispute there is zero well the automatic stay was a new in effect and wells fargo didn't file it the automatic stay so therefore no debt existed and that is not a genuine issue either but was there any evidence of when the wells fargo lawsuit was started i didn't find it i don't have that in front of me but i do have a nice carry this record is the idea that the credit was in existence that she was consolidating who loaned at and that she intended to default in order to take care of her mother so she must have known that the litigation was coming and i want one problem i have with this record is that pretty much all the data about solvency and insolvency was taken from the petition but these transfers took place almost two years before and not necessarily true that your financial condition is the same two years apart now maybe there was an objection raised at the bankruptcy court on that point but you know i don't see that there's a lot of evidence that shows that the court will not let's think about that i mean on summary judgment one when there is sufficient evidence  forward you have to come forward with evidence to can create a materially sure factor but if there is insufficient evidence presented another which insufficient evidence is insolvency because there is a time lapse between the two dance that can be handled just simply by a denial saying you can argue to the court that evidence is insufficient it was that done no that wasn't done i was no dispute is still schedules and whether the schedules were accurate should judge of just figure that out for herself i mean the evidence is insufficient on summary judgment i don't grandstand for judgement you don't need it even even if someone hasn't  raised that issue is as or to cure a lay as as they should but but here the question is whether that finding was clearly erroneous and so you have to look at whether it was illogical or whether it was record which shows that she had a credit card debt she was consolidating them and that was around the time of the transfer and that would be the police officers of the record at two forty three through two forty six she says that in think the rule the ninth circuit still is if you don't ask for a stay and you read that even under trance west you're it might be sold out a licorice on your appeal as to that appeal given multiple opportunities to have this court fashion a direct remedy and she did not do so and she even admitted to the court below what would happen if no state was entered and she then failed to