nine million dollars on the note on which she bases her proof of claim in fact the lower courts gave the order no credit at all and instead rely on a figure from the debtor schedules that all parties agreed has no basis the only question that the court should have considered was whether any payments were made after the probate courts order in february of two thousand and eight there is no evidence in the record of any payment made after that date therefore there is no basis to reduce the amount that parental claims the bankruptcy court improperly really litigated the basis for the  order the court faulted rose marie predator for not providing a payment history to support the two point nine million dollar figure contained in the probate court order yet that was not necessary if the court had given proper full fa credit to the order moreover as the trustee concedes there was no payment history to support the one point zero one nine million dollar figure contained in the debtor schedules it is clear from the record that that number was simply mistaken that is almost the same exact figure that the debtor gave as an overdue amount for all of her loans immediately prior to bankruptcy the probate court express y considered and examined the inventory and it signed an order approving it even if it were incorrect the order would be entitled to full faith and credit as this court recognized and sanders versus brady especially given the lack of support for the figure contained in the debtor schedules the lower courts erred by failing to get defer to the only calculation that had any support and that is contained in the probate courts order full faith and credit requires a federal court to give the probate court order the same of the fact that it would have been a texas court and under texas a state code section three zero nine point one five one which was formerly probate code section two sixty one once an inventory is considered and approved by a probate court it may be used as evidence  in a court case moreover that provision goes further to say that the inventory is conclusive unless two situations that are not present here apply and that is first if the in the jury omitted certain property or claims entirely left them off and second if the the amount of the property on the in the jury extraction the exceeds the value stated on the inventory so one could come in and show that the amount is actually higher than in the inventory but not that it's lower than the number contained in the in the dory and that's again that's in section three zero nine point one five one subsection to rush from evidence in the record to show exactly where that number came from there the situation in this case is that all records underlying any of the figures were destroyed in hurricane ike because both  the claimants home as well as the attorney who prepared that in the jury were destroyed that all don't ever think they were both flooded so there's no documentation however it's not necessary for a federal court to second guess how that number was derived it's perms jumped of late correct and it's just say in theory if for whatever reason the figure in the probate code said twenty million dollars in amount which obviously is way more than anybody stritch did could be right for some reason that's the figure that showed up nobody caught it or whatever whatever error it was still entitle to full faith and credit so the idea behind full faith and credit is to give comedy to the state courts decision and therefore it is not the place of the federal courts to second guess whether it was correct or not and even when it's clear as an sanders that the state court got it completely wrong it would still be entitled to full faith and credit and here there was no evidence  suggest that that number was incorrect and as even assuming that the the trustee could challenge that number the trustee never even attempted to challenge the two point nine million dollars figure there instead both the trustee in the bankruptcy court assumed that the one million dollar number contained in the schedules was presumptively correct and they simply got that wrong and should have looked first at the probate courts order and there was no evidence to suggest that that number was incorrect in this case and therefore the trustee never overcame his burden to show that that that but the number was incorrect and therefore the presumptive number should have been the two point nine million dollar figure in the probate courts order on which his parental basis for proof of claim moreover the testimony regarding certain payments and credits that may have reduced the balance of the of the note came up and was discussed by the bankruptcy court and the district court and however rosemarie parada testified that it neither she nor her husband ever agreed to reduce the balance on the note by unrelated payments to attorneys and the state court litigation or any other in kind credit for work done on the property  the testimony of the debtor was simply also inconclusive as to how much you know the amounts or when such credits would have been applied so that provided no basis to reduce the amount on the  that was stated in the probate court and then to or even if you could have second guess that under the full faith and credit clause further the bankruptcy court found there was no basis to rule where the courts relied on a number that all parties agree has no basis the one point zero one nine million dollar number contained in the debtor schedules everyone agrees is completely unsupportive the trustee admitted that there was no payment history to support that number the debtor testified that she had no idea how that number was was reached and it simply like payments or credits reduced the balance of the note at all and at the there was testimony in the section three forty one hearings by the debtors that was not directed at a specific time period or any specific amount it simply said i have no idea about this number less payments and credits for or to lawyers it was clear that the debtor did not certain sophisticated business woman she left the finances up to her ex husband she had no idea how that number was arrived at and if you look at the there's a chart that's contained in the record excerpts at tab twelve and it shows actually the calculation that was arrived at by the debtor and her attorneys to show what was her what her back due payments were of her overdue payments immediately before bankruptcy and that shows if you all of those up that gets you to the one point zero one nine million dollar number that we contend was mistakenly included in the schedules as the amount owed the remaining amount owed on the parental beach note that's that number is clearly a mistake the trustee doesn't address this week we spent five pages and our brief talking about that the trustee doesn't contest that this number has no basis he stated he  was deeply concerned that that number had no basis that the record on appeal at nine o three lines twenty three to twenty five so that number has no basis what should have happened is that the court should entitle to a claim of two point nine million dollars plus interest and attorney's fees as provided in the note now to the extent necessary the court could remain and to allow that the bankruptcy court to reconsider  the predators claim given proper deference to the probate court order however i don't believe that's necessary given that there is no evidence of any payments after the two thousand and eight were proving the inventories so that would be an option for the court but it would also be appropriate for the court to render judgment because there's no basis and there's really nothing more that the bankruptcy court needs to do all the evidence that's ever going to total and comes to that but there is no testimony regarding that letter and that coincidence or whatever it is mr renting may not like it but swear under penalty of perjury to all the schedules that she thought and she follows schedules well after that letter so if that had been an error it could have been corrected and as we stand here today it's never been corrected and in fact we have the situation that mr adam even filed her own conversion schedule with that same number in there and not because at that point in time it was one of the times in the case that some evidence presented in support of that it is the executor of the trustees position and the probate matter these are the assets this is what we think their works but the problem that we have is that to get to that you know the of the mother is no payments no credit anyone payments nominal payments even in her proof of claim she references that after the probate inventory date there may have been other nominal payments they didn't really know can't really say but to get to a balance the two point nine million dollars balance in the inventory there would have had to have been substantial payments or credit between the time the note was issued in two thousand and five and the time of the inventory in two thousand and eight and so that again you have the testimony of sonia perot twice under oath the first time with the u s trustee the second time with me with the million dollar figure is arrived at by credits that she was given for work she did not need that she paid attorneys i don't know how we overcome that evidence with an unsworn letter that didn't go challenge by the very person who author of the letter and gave more than documents that to say there is no evidence is just wrong here because we have to i have to the creditors have to rely the court has for a lot of it when th that schedules and statements it's doing so under penalty of perjury that has to mean something if the debtor comes to three forty one meaning raises their right hand and testifies and says this is what happened this is where we are that we have this evidence that's in the record on about whether the underlying state court order had to be fully and fairly educated i would would clarify that any case law that discusses that point really applies when parties are seeking precludes of race judicata of fact from a final judgment or order but the full faith and credit clause contained in article for sex from one of our constitution applies to acts records and you just told her seatings now neither act or legislative acts or records could be fully or fairly litigated and yet they're still entitle to f faith and credit similarly here whether there was a full blown adversarial hearing over the him and tory is irrelevant there certainly was an opportunity for someone to come in and challenge the amount stated then in the inventory the probate courts order stated that no one challenged it and the court also stated that it considered and examined it and it approved it and that is all this court needs to know is that the court approved the in the tour and that it is the title to full faith and credit before the bankruptcy court and here the only question is in light of that were there any payments or credits made after the inventory was approved in february two thousand and eight and there is no evidence in the record to suggest there were any payments made there testimony that the last payment was made in two thousand and eight we don't know when and therefore there's no basis to reduce the amount of the the balance due on the p another point the trustee raises is that he assumes there had to be a substantial payments and credits in order to reduce the balance of the no to what was contained on the schedules well everyone agree is there is no basis for the one point zero one nine million dollar number contained in the schedules there's just no no dispute about that there's no payment history to support it it's simply appears to be an incorrect number whether there was any testimony about that is also unnecessary it's just everyone agrees that numbers is baseless it's not necessary to correct it when you give propofol faith and credit to the probate courts order and then look at whether the any payments on the record after that order while there aren't any payments and therefore that is the number that should be should have been approved by the courts so simply that this case is unfortunate in that there was no you know evidence and documents were destroyed in a hurricane and so we don't have a perfect world where there's a payment schedules supporting all of the numbers but that is not necessary here when you give proper full faith and credit to the probate court order and simply look at whether anything happened after that any payments happen after that to reduce the amount due on the note that not is all that needed to be considered and really the court entirely ignored the probate court order they knew it was there it was discussed but they didn't give it any credit at all and that does not comply with our constitution