well i would like to hear your questions because you know i'm not versed in the in making these statements upfront so if you have questions that would help me know yeah we were we kind of think we understand the argument yes and that is that your claim i believe is that your you have a right to the homestead exemption because even though it's not titled in your name now that the state court made an amendment to the original judgment that allowed alter ego claims to proceed typically as a matter of convenience for holding property when individuals don't want to hold it right for the record or there's good reason why they shouldn't hold correct yes but you know on c n n it is the does business correct or answer that question we are only concerned about the exemption and whether under california law you have a exemption in the real property well again the question is thousands the title have to be in the person's name it does not say in what form it has to be so in the spirit of the homestead acts to create a limited liability for the owners of the company and to protect the assets that are within the limited liability company's control over ownership and that's a reason why you  plan because you want to protect the assets so why not use the advantages of an l l c because you could use a trust which would be could be the owner clear to the owner before so now i am a little it's actually a little different the california process here is unique and i think it's a little different from what your understanding of the california allows for the imposition of liability against parties who were not originally defendants in the lawsuit and it's a little bit odd that you know what california allows is a plaintiff is th defendant obtain a judgment and then by motion practice after that judgment has been obtained to ask for a determination that somebody else also should be liable for that death based upon factors that go to that creditors claim and what that creditor is able to establish with respect to the relationship that creditors purposes between the defendant and the rd party so when the court if the court grants that motion what the court is doing is acting equitably and it's acting actually for the benefit of somebody who deserves that result and frankly contre somebody who acted inequitably and that's the end of it i mean there is no further equity to be done of them point all the equity that needs to be done has been done in court is not equating two different parties the court is saying for purposes of this judgment the right answer is that this entity also answer for so this is not what's good for the goose is good for the gander because it just doesn't work that way and that's what judge parrish i think was suggesting and i don't know why that's the wrong answers of the other reason why you think it's the wrong answer you know it is not a matter of equity because equity has been done it's over it that's been accomplished ok tell me what it is your honor i have one more question i am on appeal although the alt then you know i win the war on not only this battle because then you know the only question is then what are the rights of my life in the sea because she owns fifty percent of the sea so at least i would ask the court to just tell blizzard or the trustee to set aside to put up a bond open even in escrow or leave it with the trustee  i understand when you have approached her that they're going to be given latitude with regard to certain things and so for example just the fact that mister shapers has not established that there's jurisdiction  in before this panel i'm sure that that's not going to be a reason for the appeal i've even though he didn't he didn't do with required to do by but there are certain things that the panel just really shouldn't put attached additional evidence in decorations and exhibits and that stuff needs to be stricken from the record just to make sure that if the matter gets appealed again that it's not part of the record before the th circuit so i just that's just a word to the to the panel this case is really messed up procedurally in a bunch of different ways but i understand it get a little bit of benefit there but i just think i need to say that the next thing that i think that the panel needs to look at very very careful is everything mister schieffer has said is has to be looked at through this lens mister shavers because the four million dollars or non discharge fraud judgment against mister shavers is vociferous lee arguing that somebody else namely cambridge l l c should not pay his judgment he not only doesn't exemption for residents he resigns there therefore he gets the exemption ok well let so let them let's talk about that that's where the interesting part of this case is so again there's very little law only on the matter  i mean perhaps your clerk found something more than i found but what i found was this in rebel case it's out of the northern district of california judge lafferty score and it says in a partnership which is identical to  basically in fact we oftentimes treat l l season bankruptcy cases like heart ship sometimes like corporation that you don't you don't get the homestead when you put your property into the partnership or and in this case into the l l c because they're what mister shavers is trying to do is claim a homestead interest in a personal property right namely his membership interest in the l l c and that's the distinction with the family trust you actually still have some of those bundle of sticks they all talked about in real property class back in law school you have an interest in real property you have two interests in fact one in bell you had the  court found that the debtor had a a light of the state in the property which is an interest in the real property and the other thing that the court found in bell was that you have a you have a reversion to a contingen have didn't didn't claim is an exemption an interest in the real property what he has is an interest in an l l c it's a personal property and in fact he put the property into the well i can't say why he did it but he has done everything to keep the property own way from the bankruptcy case away from his creditors through this mechanism of having it in the l l c and that has allowed him to keep it one remove now that he's lost that ability in a number of different ways he's now he says well now that makes it my property so any claim a homestead has but if he had claimed that this was his property to begin with or if he had had it in his name it would have been sold a year ago this case has been going on almost eighteen months and most of that time has been taken up with trying to get around this mechanism that he has done of putting this property into the l l c so he got a benefit out of it but he pays a price that's the that's the way the law works as far as the  i pretty sure i said that in my brief back at the time we raised the alter ego issue even though mister shavers didn't really raise it we put it that was in our pleadings from the beginning so the other thing is the l l c has other assets it definitely has other assets it has bank accounts it has a lease rights and to permit the debtor to claim a homestead interest in the l l c interest permits don't you know that it's really a very early simple case i don't know what else to say about it i there there is again there's not much law well all there is is on the side of my client that's the way the judge went and believe he was correct in doing so i  the answer other questions or if the court wants to talk about the panel wants to talk about this a motion i have things to say about that as well as well we may conclude in less than thirty minutes and then we'll see i  any timing difference or problem homestead exemption homestead exemption it is an entitlement to money from that asset it doesn't give you control over that asset and quite honestly if this they can sell it it does not preclude the sale of that asset it just means out of those funds you will get the amount of your exemption so i am i am having trouble trouble squaring how this is even relevant on this appeal to seek a stay of the bankruptcy court well i cannot comment otherwise you know it is  st of all we are very skeptical generally about the consideration of an underlying motion meaning the motion to sell hasn't even been adjudicated in the bankruptcy court and it would be very difficult to say that you should the bankruptcy court cannot consider that motion it is prior restraint right yes it is after that that there is a sta of the it force but of that water you don't stay the consideration of that motion so that's what we want to talk to you about because it seems like really your complaint is you don't want the property sold understand that you need to make that opposition see what happens in the bankruptcy rather than asking the this appeals court which is considering only the exemption ition to do so before decisions being made i understand that and i may come back to you once the bankruptcy court decides on the motion to sell maybe they don't agree but if they agree then i may appear to you again or not that is fair enough but also taking a look at the underlying motion it appears that they are the bankruptcy estate is not selling it based upon alter ego or anything they're selling it through your interest at the l l c and your state previous that is as the managing member which is a whole different then the exemption impacts that distribution whether or not they can sell it is a very different matter that needs to be addressed in the