exception is limited when the district court would be required to either probate or in all it will administer a state or dispose of property that is in the custody court and that case squarely fell within that last rd element which i believe is the one here at issue justice ginsberg further defined it as to whether the release sought odd sturtze or effect that a session of the property in the custody of the state court in other words however it was the police that unilaterally took my clients off the account and that's where they divest my client from her property that's when she saw st the last essentially obviously there's all the other issues that took place again before the so let me just ask you one clarifying question to push them up as i mean in my understanding your claim correctly that basically your client i mean your client's money was just because they were stolen by the bank some do what you're asking for is a check from the bank to your client at the end of the case that says this was the i mean the idea is this is the money that we lost or we stole or whatever and we're going to pay you  no i think my client's claim would be the under fifty thousand dollars that initially were transferred yes there was appreciation of that money through the years that was invested in the eighty's and i believe late eighty's but it is specifically over what my client claims was her are completely unrelated and did not affect the probably proceedings and therefore have continued in the matter and the probate court has also accepted that interpretation from the estate in that case i see that my time is up with the manner in which the estate design handled the claims against the i believe and so now is it i'm going to use those claims for herself and bring those claims directly and that actually is not assume that's all true is that really a question of whether this entire case is is not properly in the district court because of the private exception or is that a question of whether  play by birju of the manner in which the appellant is attempting to bring this claim i think what with respect to that if we need to back up i make a couple factual clarification because an owner of those retail deposit accounts and she never makes the claim that her money was deposited into any of those retail the pot so the account she never makes a claim that any of the money stolen out of the retail deposit account belong to advocate for a meeting of the constraint in this case i mean you know because we are on our own are we judge marino says there's no subject matter jurisdiction but the complaint on the it seems to me you're a chain advocates you of what was alleged here no i'm i'm your honor so respectfully every i disagree with that character if you look at the complaint paragraph nine is where the  allegation of yours concerning the retail deposit accounts and if you look at the paragraph step perceive that beginning in power thirteen those are all discussion about the transfer of this investment account  last passed the investment account and the bank accounts became assets so the asset is actually before the probate court right that is seeking any money out of account probate court and then if you take it to the next step appellant allegation here are all about harm to account there's not a single allegation in this complaint that her specific money out well that that's where the problem with the phone bit exception comes in because this is an investment and as a as appellate argue an investment account is not a dollars eighty dollars out now so disposition provided for by the will of with respect to that in trust and we have in the record a document a settlement agreement showing that these pacific bequest was made to account for two hundred dollars that two hundred thousand dollars which under law we  is a repayment of that in trust and so then the federal court would have to look past that and then deal with the determination to say well was appellant interest in this asset that is before the probate court actually harm by the alleged tortious condo and there's no way to do that without conducting a premature evaluation of your state that's exactly what the panel and stewart said was prohibited by the probate exception and with respect to this argument case wendy this didn't pass he owned one hundred percent stock in a company after he passed a rd party claimed ownership of twenty four percent of that stock and attempted to bring its own claims and federal court by virtue of that ownership interest the federal court rejected that under the probate exception and said that asset the stock is before the probate court an ownership interest in any of these accounts she's sitting to take ownership of these accounts by virtue of an allegation that she was supposed to be an owner now and proper remedy would have been to claim that before the probate court to declare would be exercising jurisdiction over assets better before the program court by saying you're a joint owner by operation of law upon death of the other joint owner you state actually been funding those accounts actually became your funding and never should have been part of the estate to begin with the nd way that this belief impacts the state is because either way to propel it brings this case the concerned claims that  in the account is harmed that she suffered individually without that allegation she can't allege an individualized harm the harm is absolutely suffered by accounts own by the estate not by her and so she  part of your client so what if what if you know there's no money left you say she still has no cause of action against the incident i am saying that it might be a different cause of action she has an alleged complaint if you read it is actually filled with allegation that there was communication with mr fisher about things that were going on in the account and she chose to do nothing about it until much  is your argument if let's say it has martin and i have a joint account and a different bank and simply takes me off the account is it your argument that i have no cause of action transfer occurred in the scenario you describe your cause of action movie for clarity will be that you are actually supposed to be an account owner of the account that was transferred and that you were denied a standing as an account owner by virtue of the malfeasance up transferring bank but that's not what the claims appellant brings in sarnia they are concerned actions by her brother five years after the transfer happened which is two thousand and eleven and all of the fact resolve my client's claim and did not affect the funds that my client is claiming and never made it to the probate proceedings the other important point here is that he is just ginsberg stated in marshall and stuart decision also points to is that the group exception should be naturally applied and when we have an instance produce year where possibly the claims could fall within