overriding contention of the appellant in this case is that if the deed to dynasty from the dead or heritage is a valid deed to dynasty that's correct but up close examination of it leads to leads you to have to make an assumption about why book a grant them sign what assumption when it says signed by dynasty group and then right underneath that  dynasty group by grantham as an agent of dynasty i think it's the way it's being rated is it was signed by dynasty group inc next not in this deal the capacity in which book to grant them sand is not in this deed and it was an assumption on behalf of the bankruptcy court and even the district court that that book grantham actually sand for dynasty but that is not true that milly's and nowhere does it say it was signed by the letter to as the grant or well i think that brings a question did the grand tour sign yes yes and that brings me to to the whole concept of a mississippi law because it's true that we would have to look into three it unless you one question this was supposedly transferred in april of two thousand and eight that's over eleven years ago was there any evidence that any money has been paid in those eleven years where in dynasty had loaned money to heritage in exchange for heritage deeding the deed over to dynasty was admitted into the court but no one was that well i'm going to be funded well if it had been funded was not an issue at trial but because the only issue was whether or not had dynasty in fact loan money to to heritage in exchange for heritage deeding the  deed over to dynasty the idea of consideration all the valid consideration paid by dynasty was not an issue of trust the issue here of course is whether or not it was paid he said money was paid question of can you submit pro eleven and what did he it was any parole evidence admitted for the judge to consider yes it was a middle of the main item a control of a and in my capacity as treasurer of heritage and once he did the bankruptcy judge from it mr grantham to be asked well if you were the treasurer and signing for heritage why is dynasty above your name minutes and only those of declarations we argued that parole evidence ought to be admitted to explain why did he send because when you read the entire sign and i think what the district court did is stopped at the st two lines it's a sandbag dynasty and then it had a signature and then after that it's the burial walk it's book of branston davis it's terry a davis i'll give you that happen regardless of that confusion i don't see anywhere on the document where it says that the debtor who was the grant or signed the agreement and show even accepting the grantham said oh i thought i was or whatever his testimony was how does that overcome the plain face of the document it becomes the point pace of the document because the plain face of the document does not say in what capacity book a grant and say yeah it will it address the strong arm provisions section five hundred and forty four which applies even if this transfer was valid but it was on record as of the date of the bankruptcy of an ok under the strong arm provision the trustee would be put on actual notice that somebody other than heritage owned the property because on the very day of appointment of the trustee that the trustee testified that i received a copy of the petition and the petition it clearly it does not own this property so if you if you if the trustee picks up a document that schedules are filed after the bankruptcy is commenced right well those schedules in this case was filed prior to the was appointed to be over the chapter seven part of the case and therefore that disclosure that heretics did not own this property was already a matter of the economic and the trustee the key date of the filing of the bankruptcy for this provision well there are cases they say it's the from the start of the petition but because busy we are dealing here with the strong arm provision of the trustee we have to deal with the date that the trustee was appointed the trustee was appointed in two thousand and fifteen which is about three or four months after the chapter eleven was put to a spot in two thousand and fourteen was filed so we have to really look for any practical purposes look at the two thousand and fifteen day at the ten the trustee authority for them i mean i don't have the case with me but but they are cases that say they won't name me one that just happened that i have to apologize that read so many cases that i can't i can't name them but but judge i would say this that if you look at it very carefully it will not matter whether the trust where the you look back at the date that the chapter eleven petition was filed a whether you look at the date that the chapter seven  point it's still the same and that is the start of the case the inception of the cases the bowing of the petition and it's good news at the inception of the case that disclosing that heritage does not own this eighty acres is in that package from the inception about so either way whether we look at the inception of a pound of the chapter eleven or we look three months later at the conversion when the trustee was appointed that knowledge has already been disclosed and is already a matter of record in the bankruptcy court so that and the reason why is because the case law say is that if the trustee has actual knowledge certainly on the mississippi law he investigation of the facts concerning the title to that property and certainly one thing another thing would be that if a hypothetical buyer was about to purchase property from heritage that that was an arrow done by her attorneys in the alabama case which ultimately as you know was dismissed it was dismissed so she say it so she said in her testimony that by the tad we got around to piling the mississippi case we corrected that because we d not own that eighty acres when this whole thing seems awfully fishy with the signatures and the fact that there's no evidence of any payment ever being made for these what eighty acres and it just seems to me that's exactly what the strong arm provision is about it says if there's a suppose an exchange of property that isn't recorded we're not going to have knowledge that is actual and actual transaction i think you would have to look at the crime knowledge of the of the transactions and i don't think you would come to that same conclusion in other words the crime knowledge is that the transaction giving the deed to two dynasty was sixty seven years before the bankruptcy  a equal date with the passing of the d and that's a very common problem situation so that when a person is buying a house the deep sometimes even reflects the fact that the consideration for buying this if it is suspicious when parole evidence ought to be admitted to determine whether or not that was indeed a signature by booker grant them own behalf of heritage it six years before any bankruptcy proceeding property was on by heritage correct then the chapter eleven his filed in mississippi tell me on what's good jew and how it is stated that the property does not belong to heard of i don't have the exact county it's just absent player is absent in also in the bank of the kohut there was testimony from the president of here would that's quite a difference between it's not even on the schedule as opposed to your are implying that it was affirmatively stated we do not light your argument to day it i think a person hearing at what have a fair understanding you were saying there with an affirmative declaration on the all schedules that's what's add macon vo i didn't mine to convey that right bet it's that strongly  signed by best didn't it was not recorded so as of the date the bankruptcy was found there was no notice to anybody that this property interest was out there was simply a secret interest  standing in the same rights that a chapter seven trustee would these of be those of warrants actions they have the right and they have the obligation as a matter of law to pursue those claims so it is as of the date of the commitment of the case is the critical issue the nd issue in that i wanted to mission the court if i could that the lower courts did not address is a ground because it's in the record that this case can be of is this was a plain post petition transaction and we played there in our complaint we asked the court set this aside as a post petition transaction under section five hundred and forty nine of the bankruptcy code that the lower courts did not address that issue because they didn't feel like they had to i guess they used an address it but it is clearly a closed petition transaction is undisputed in the record it's a date was not found until after the case was found out more than six months after this bankruptcy was about number two this is a state property because as of the date the bankruptcy was filed it was in the name of heritage number three the court didn't approve there's no court authorization for approving this transaction which section doesn't that all depend on this quick claim deed issue because let's say it was perfectly signed by heritage there were none of these issues it just wasn't recorded but it was signed back in a way when then it's no longer heritages proper i mean i thought the recording is all not void they could have gone back and perhaps asked the court to to set aside the stay or no stay but that never happened and so where we are is there is also a ground so not position is we have four grounds three transfer of money there isn't there is some discussion about a promissory of but that is also very confusing in the record as to what that note actually may have because this property is not mentioned only that promis as a piece of property that was given to secure that i think that is in the record that's my concern on a bit of evidence thing so confused and i wasn't clear from going on at the same time it doesn't appear in the transcript in the objection to that testimony appears but even if the court considered that i think it could we use a bench trial in the court  investigation of a prospective buyer would be to go and look at the property and you looked at it and you saw cattle grazing where you know that heritage is ceased operation then you have to ask yourself well who is conducting th the raising of the cattle out there on the property and that is because it has been turned over to a dynasty in dynasty was doing that part of if you want to look again post bankruptcy filing so a lot of the terms on this what's the relevant date to look at notice yes i was asking  his question but yes the relevant date i would assert in the court should should bear this in mind as we just discussed that the this transfer occurred six years before the bankruptcy even came about there was no idea that this bankruptcy was going to be happening  the other thing though is that when considering whether or not the deed is valid that is a consideration between the grant when you grant eat that's not an issue between a rd party at that point i'm thing your point about the cattle we're providing notice that you're saying that's gives notice because if you'd gone after it's been converted chapter seven you might wonder well wait i thought heritage is done do anything wire wire there's my eyes are still operating that's quranic but i'm saying that again comes back to when you look at notice yes he says the statute says at the time of the commencement of the case yet so that rant that those cattle at the time if you went out there the day of the bankruptcy you wouldn't think anything's unusual about a bunch of cattle being out there but  grantee and at the between the going to grant you there is nothing in here that say as that heritage tried to assert any other control of the property at that point as a matter of fact the testimony at trial was  would there's that she signed as a witness but it was the president of the heritage right she was president she was the president of heritage so she had at st and when all this happens but she does not sign in the engine as we've already come to agree that that acknowledgment is faulty because this entire d is is done by somebody who is none of the not a lawyer and that it is probably why it's not have nothing to do with it i just signed it and that's the reason why you have to look at the intent of the parties because it would be a nullity for dynasty to deed heritage property to dynasty and then let dynasty sand the d dynasty has no incentive to do a d getting property to itself and sat in the deed itself which is not what i'm so that that's an exercise in futility if you try to read it that way i want to call your attention to three things and i just the bankruptcy judge said it's confusing the trustee said it is a confusing mess we admit is confusing the district court is the odd man out he's the only one says that it's not confusing is not ambiguous