supreme court's ruling in marshall the district court found in favor of reggie goldstein those claims that finding is not been a field and so it's final in the event you determine that the federal court california trust the ninth circuit has precedents in martial that's still good law that that is a surely probate function i'm not sure i agree with you our concern and marshal decision was not to interfere with or effectively overturn it texas probate since it's here there's no state probate decision that would interfere with their effect if we overturn every transfer frank made out of the trust after he moved the hoary and then how many transfers like that well the allegations in the complaint says that franken really transferred all of their assets into the california trust and that when frank died except for a vacation home but when frank die there were no assets left except one note indeed a trust relating to this building but in this case the organ probate court currently has jurisdiction over because not in the california trust and this interpretation says hey because they were not to dr certificates or even probate court you need to send that to the california trust i some duplexes those were transferred to frank church and the complaint in the oregon case says and are either in his estate or in his oregon trust now the based on the ruling of the california  that is an effect on the probate and i think it goes further and actually affects of rares that's within the jurisdiction of the probate court not the california building but all the other property that they claim was in this trust and asked both the federal and state court to trace and return back to the trust and i think judge birds recognize the problem and try to mitigate it by just focusing on one transaction let's limit this to one transaction decision for the probate court as to how we're going to dispose of the assets in france will is the state and his trust that made that decision and it's now called the probate court what to do and that's a perfect case is intertwined and you're dealing with a california trust an oregon trust and an oregon will and you're disposing of assets that were in frank's estate you there is a trust or is will  way in which a court construed the california trust affects how the rest of the property is going to be disposed of by the oregon probate in what way the oregon probate court is going to be asked to find that any attempts by frank transfer assets out of the california trust into his oregon trust or by his or even will were invalid all that may be aspects that's not determined by this case well because the only reason is the difference here is oregon hasn't finished the last in the facts this case there were some rulings made oregon's hasn't finished there still that probate case is still pending and so you have to look i think from a forward let's suppose you had i factor or case something totally unrelated to will's frost cd probably unrelated just an ordinary basis between two individuals the administration and the state of the person who claimed it was john doe inter caste richard rowe you're claiming as i understand it that that order civil case that had been pending frequent probate like the logic of your argument i'm not sure you do or not but it's a pending probate and if you look at the pleadings the federal court and the state court rast do the exact same thing identify all the assets from the church of trust traced them and put them back in the trust hello let me ask you something else about this just to make sure i got the basic framework right out what the practical effect of a case is is whether the california trust left the property to a son daughter grandson and then a bunch of other grants from oregon trust the leads to the gifts to the son daughter grandson so it was frank to the woman who is taking care of him and at the end now it's it's the grandchildren under the of original california trust but not the son and daughter and one other grandchild because when frank moved to oregon make that decision secondly there was no dispute about whether lily was incompetent the plaintiff was alleging the same thing so there was no reason to require these doctors to kill her and it does say or and so did with that yes good question but i guess i disagree with that factual finding your me he he took that he didn't do that with distilled it took a non income producing building turned it into an asset that would produce income in the form of monthly interest payments that he could then use to care for lily he didn't know what was going to come in the future and what was going to be required it already spent eighty thousand dollars i'm jim scouse it in need a doctor for that to make it so jim could buy a bigger house him and really could move in and he could have some help taking care of lily nobody's questioning that he's out eighty thousand and he doesn't know how long they need over her house i thought she was in one of those residential care lily moved into a home really didn't move into the home until the very end of their stay gems and then frank got her out of the home because she never wanted to be there in the first place i'd like to reserve for recall and i ask one more qu well i think it does and i also think article nine doesn't prohibit this stale judge and the general provisions of article nine also allow the sale because article nine says that you can amend the trust but i don't think you have to go there i don't think article eleven prohibited the sale because it says you may not sell the bill and that's a discretionary and there's no evidence he abused his discretion and then the very next sen article eleventh as but if it's there it doesn't say that if it's there but that's where i read it usually charge rent a five hundred dollars he says you shall charge rent you may not sell there's a difference between what those words me and what happened here is the court found you needed a modification because this provision prohibited the sale because he didn't read the dress he relied on experts which shows he was out of  namely defendant's misapplication of probate exception to federal court jurisdiction in the instant case again i would note diversity jurisdiction itself is not challenging here as judge as held by justice ginsburg and the united court's contra the defendant's assertion the probate exception is this the court is recognizing extremely limited and narrow application the standard is not whether an issue could be handled by a probate court for that was expressly file could be too broad an application under the marshall court martial court confirm that the standard is you have to have interference with than and the administration of the season's estate and precludes federal courts from disposing of property that is in the custody of a state probate court but it otherwise does not bar federal courts from  is just recognized was not subject to any probative ministration in california it is real property the san diego property was not in the custody of the california probate court defendant further unfortunately the states the facts are lost in an incorrect attempt to apply the exception or to fashion the exception defendant unfortunately it's a service and incorrectly that the organ probate court was somehow involved in the administration were custody of the san diego property that unfortunately is a clear misstatement of the actual facts the oregon probate court on two occasions express rule that the san diego property was not in the custody of and was not part of the administration of the oregon probate court i would respectfully refer the court to the red brief appendices one through sets which are the rulings of the oregon probate court which rulings were made one year prior to the trial in the southern district court defendant further misapplies the california probate code seventeen thousand in the instance of arcades seventeen thousand expressively provides work and current jurisdictions in such cases as is before us which is an action against the third party do unto a real property transfer based on an invalid b which deed and transfer as your honor recognized was based was done during frank and literally  honor we said that you know having a ninety one year old the ninety three year old execute a deed which purports to give a very valuable piece of property in the gaslamp of san diego on a ten year balloon notary to be not credible so getting back to the probate exception yes are your main focus yes or if i understand this argument where i'm asking you t probate exemption you're saying that it doesn't because the supreme court decision in marshall makes the probate exceptional law clearer than it used to be and a lot narrower than some people thought it was and it just doesn't extend real life marshals or brand have any circuit courts interpret it one way or the other since marshall i was going to discuss that your honor because my friend cites three cases i say he missed cites the case i think basically in a nutshell of what i would say in i believe an answer to your question is that my friend isn't correct the san diego issues were not private part of the probate oregon sad the san diego issues were not the state eagle property was not part of the oregon administration nor was it in the custody of the court air go everything that oregon is doing is separate and point of fact judge burns was very carefully took almost a surgical precision to the issues in this case my learned friend failed to inform the court that what was said in the complaint went through to trial court judges and judge burns ultimately said hey look i'm going to be very careful in this matter and he only kept the issue of the san diego property mr parrot is himself was present in the court from when it was agreed that even if there was a  of the san diego property does not affect the oregon court but it is i lose my coker when you talk about how your adversary is making incorrect representation is about this or that just talk to me so i can guess or understand what you're saying yes or in other words and it there is going to be if you put lucia because the civil case will determine that jurisdiction secondly the fact remains that the the oregon probate court will be making the dispositions under the stack right a state plan in oregon the california matter was again a separate issue as to issue preclusion with respect to how frank did it again the the matter was done while lily was alive when frank was making the transfers and while frank and while they were making transfers as the record reflects frank and lily signs eneral powers of attorney in the oregon action to permit defendants to move monies around so i don't believe an issue preclusion for say would arise in the oregon action sufficient to invoke the probate second the transfer of the standing of the property was in violation of an expressed term of the trust restricting the transfer of the san diego property i refer you to e r ninety six second that trick the trust agreement  in the truck that it could not be sold that would require a a an amendment to the trust you minutes of the trust would require to signature his remedy and which what the court pointed out and which is pointed out  because of the change of circumstance you seek to remove that amendment now under his powers of trustee if that restriction was not in place he would be able to build the property irrespective of fifteen or all nine i would like to pick up with with the the point about this provision related to that can so i'm not a california lawyer so this may be a really ignorant question suppose frank had revoke the trust and part with respect for the san diego barbershop property would that mean a half interest in the whole would now be frank's and a half interest in the whole would now be owned by the  i would like to go to the issue of the contention that well going back to my argument that this was a very simple situation the and  sufficient but we don't have that here we only have one thing to the idea that this restriction that the argument advanced by counsel that this restriction only applies to the year to that issue i would like to point that out at our ninety three paragraph sixteen e r ninety five paragraph forty one the argument that it would only apply for the year after would be totally place i would like to draw the court's attention also to the argument made that you have to give great attention or the intent of the subsequent will in each case the respective trusts that words set forth the specific requirements revocation of their trust which required actually during their lifetime in both cases the court of appeal failed that that revocation by the that means frank sr's a dad has to be dead for at least a year and maybe more but we outlive them and it means the trustees have discretion to keep that in the family till one year after death as long as frank shall pay five hundred dollars a well you have that all the time in contract cases where the judges one interpret man shall but you have to go with the ordinary meaning of the word you say the ordinary meaning of the sentence you may not do something is you may do it you may or may not get ice cream i to make it i'd like it if you didn't but you don't have to i'd like it was a it was a hoax it wasn't a command it was a hoax and the only evidence it was built on our whole weapon when mom says to the kid you may not get ice cream she means