said roger we utilized actual production history of the legacy force an entity to obtain millions of dollars in financing and thousands of acres of cropland and therefore acting as the successors telling us fifteen million dollar difference on the insurance and so forth but it seems like a very funny you know property interests i mean you know does one think of one's track record as a driver you know a lot of car accidents as a property interest i wouldn't think of it as a property interest and it's true it may factor into the insurance you get but again i don't think of it as a transferable property interest in your you seem to be treating it as a transfer of the property interest and that's that's odd to me do you have any cases that say you can think of it as a transferable property interest it just seems like a it seems like a flat out it's a set of facts and go on facts your honor there and relevant it can make a dollars and cents difference and i could commit fraud if i lied about it so i get it that it could be the promise of a fraud claim i don't understand how it's a transferable interest and if it's not a transferable crop interest how is there how to how does the statute or anything else apply to your you're on the difference between a driving record in actual production history is that actual production history is the key to unlocking  the crop they look at the actual production history in the crop insurance protecting the specific collateral about this can i if you had some land which was very productive i want to buy and i'm saying you know the prices are a little expensive is there any chance i cannot purchase the production history so the joke no one would think that's really you can't do that i can't say gimme a one hundred thousand discount because i don't want anything to do with the production history that's just and so there's very strict standards that go into the transfer of this actual production history and ask you just the mechanics of it because i'm not clear as to how is the production history created record at the actual actual production history reports which are included in the evidence in the motion for summary judgment you'll see that there is records or somebody physically takes data on a tractor and it counts for the actual yield or insurance companies to determine whether there was a loss of that particular mirror and it's verifiable data and tip and typically there is a specific individual who survives the yield that's recorded from his actual production history does the data go  through through this mechanism yes right so it's actually taken once this data is calculated it's taken and it's reported to both the risk management association and the approved insurance provider in order to make a determination of the actual production history data and then the race for the crop insurance and the amount of you know protection that the crop insurance will have and i take it there's no non disclosure agreement accompanying the transmission  make it public domain i mean how does it become a private property if you can get it through for your quest your honor it's i think if he excess ability of the information and the utilization and property interests  the information is not necessarily in it being proprietary or confidential it's what it allows the farmer transferee to do with it and so in this instance because the apple lease had actual that you can actually even though your paper owner is clearly different from the old owner that you can actually books through the paper in order to see who is actually the true owner or the pragmatic owner of the practical owner is there any michigan case law for that proposition your honor in terms of success or liability it has turned on the point of who is the actual person in charge here and i think that when we also look at the voidable transfer act one equipment transfers come from a non debtor in city and the only lame transfer that i think you're challenging comes from sirius which is not a debtor so what is the transfer property that you're challenging under the transfers statute your honor the transfer predominantly that's important here is the actual production history and although the court is correct that the transfer or the land by lease n v equipment are non however when we look at the if but counsel just tell me on this particular point let's let's just accept the idea they're they're related their family members reason to be skeptical i saw i'll grant you all that for the sake of argument but but good for helena i mean he's an judgment better now he has more money tell me i can't figure out what the game is that you're afraid they're plying your honor so one thing i want to address in your question was is fraud by crop insurance fraud against the federal government in prop insurance and what it's done is it's allowed the helena borson anybodies to continue their frog farming operations by why is it bad that they're for up the money that they generate from the farming of the land is going to flow back through the lease and flow into debt or hands that you can actually then try to take if that if that if they're not allowed to farm no money is being produced i would think that is bad for that because there's no chance of getting anything if there farming at least some money is being generated that may have been straight flow back and you had better from what you can recover you know argument that paper ownership is one thing i'd set set aside the factual point about whether it's anything more than paper ownership would michigan law allow for you if you thought if the new entity was really being here but there the reality is there is nothing you're right paper ownership as it could be one thing and that is stacy and nick are the owners of the new companies they were not owners of the old companies but there is nothing in the record to show that long time in western law married people were treated just won now there were some very discriminatory components discriminatory components to that it was the man who became the one that was quite unfair to the women but the insight is that you know it's a really plausible they're not talking about the farming operation i mean you know they're going to bed and stacy says the debts while we're debating whether to soybeans or or corn is year and he says don't talk about it don't you think they're having those conversations i mean how could that not be it's their farmers that been there multigenerational farmers and if you asked me that is the instinct behind the whole case what about that but the reality is there is nothing in the record father and son talk sure that that's that's certainly within the round possibility and probably does happen occasionally but the reality x must now be you know you bring it up the father son has as a father myself of sons that's even more but but you know reality is that you know that that the buck stops at neck he's the one that has to make the decision and management of the company same with stacy and her company they make the decisions they're the managers  they control the companies and there's nothing in the record that indicates dennis is doing anything for the companies except maybe given some fatherly advice or some president advice like any family member might but there's no case law that would indicate that that's the case now even if you look at this look different scenario but if you look at the foodland distributors sec case that's been cited as a alter ego corporate piercing case that they look at the brother and say the brothers the defacto owner ok that wasn't a successor liability case but you look at what the brother was doing there before they reach that conclusion rather had a company that goes broke ok so that's about the same as here but it could be and that brother causes the sister to set up the company brother the company brother incurs debt with the company has your question just the record show whether stacy and dennis had separate bank accounts separate wills and all of that or is the record silent or talking about their personal bank accounts and in terms of this case we're talking about whether new heights one new heights firm one you raised from and two are separate entities and to be respected as separate entities which is the suppose the hypothetical that these new entities become wildly successful garner hundreds of thousands of dollars those profits will go to the owners they can stay z so if it goes intestacy bank account w be possible for helena to garnish the bank account or something at that point doesn't that i think that concern would be that even though dennis is not  d well just to make a friendly and manage the question there stacy not giving dennis a time it's just going into their joint bank account so there's no giving it's a joint bank account which dennis can use when but wait a minute up the money is going into the company account there's no record that the that the company doesn't have its own accounts you know because it is the promise of church murphy's question is they make a lot of money if the owner gets the money eventually that stacy and it goes into a joint bank account with dennis would have want to have access to that if it goes into a joint account with dennis there's a presumption that he is entitled to half of the money and under michigan law against his interest but something similar to a charging order is part of the collection process that money that goes to him has to be paid to the creditors there's actually one dollar in one other case against us at this point but  regardless of that the money is stacey's now by michigan law stacey's entitled to own a company separate from dennis her property as her separate property and what she you know her company is a separate company from her as judge after a noted fraud committed against somebody else is not a fraud committed against talent and so that doesn't give a right to relief but bottom line on this transfer of the eighty eight is that the debtor does not transfer the a p a even the part and page thirteen of the reply brief or they quote from the handbook the federal government's handbook on the crop insurance it says that the insurer transfers the u the new farmer and they have certain conditions for is there but there has to be some approval by the owner of the land before the transfer occurs well no it doesn't the owner of the land leases the land to the t ok and the tenant you know then applies for crop insurance the owner of the land doesn't approve it has no signature requirement from the owner of the land the tenant used to meet the requirements for crop insurance and those are the same crop insurer for so you got your black acre in allegan county that has been fined by one entity for a period of time that the new company gets the crop rating for that farm in allegan county that the a farmer had x farm somewhere else it would be a rating for that farm it's based on the farm and then it's based on the production of the entity that's farmed before and the the data is there the insurance company they make the determination the federal regulations  cited say that the insurer determines or assigns the grading to the new farm not the debtor so you can't have an avoidable transfer the other the other thing that's an important point on that avoidable transfer is simply that that there is no way for the creditor to monetize the a p a let's say that we jump back to the spring of two thousand and nineteen and the creditor has their judgment in place they go out with a writ of execution they can't seize the a ph and so there's no authority that's been presented to that i've not seen anything on that there's nothing in the regulations that allow that avoidable transfer of the it's case is here the creditor can't do anything with here is it really the case you could never sell production history in other words some wheeler dealer that's a gauge of insurance in his head she misled you couldn't find a way to  production history in order to an insurance that you then transfer bought to the person that's that's not a i've never seen anything to indicate that so if the if the  farmer steps farming that of course the a ph really doesn't do him any good anymore it's not worth anything if the farmers farming he can't sell the eighty eight because it's got to be for his farming and then when a new farmer takes over if they qualify to use the an a p a yield rating from past history they get that yield rating if they don't then they get this generic county rating that's an absolute case as it's lower some cases it's higher  than the actual production history but it's not that it's an all or nothing type think this crop insurance is available even without a past history it's just you don't get the good you know hopefully if you have a good rating that you will get if you have the qualifications and that that's what the insurer determines and again that's why it's no no transfer now i take it does that in the records showing a difference there's nothing here showing what the difference is between the a p a chanda general county rating is no there there there isn't anything in the record on a map so council you are going to circle back to discovery can i this is just get the question right if if the court rules that it's really not transferable the production history is that was that most of what they discovery was about that they were still seeking or is it or there are some aspects of the discovery they were seeking or went beyond that you know they the only thing i really know that they're seeking is is the crop production history the actual the a ph and if and you know this is the discovery in  case it was sort of i would say wacky and crazy on their part because they've never taken the deposition of dennis bourse and they never taken the deposition of the crop insurance agent they've never asked for their depositions they've never stake the deposition of our understand day of the st period of discovery but we have a period of discovery then it's extended then is extended again after hearing with a magistrate have made braced much much much was what he told helen had to get done on the discovery and  so this was rather you know lack of diligence there the crop insurance issue was was potentially it was an issue of issue at st because they had great lakes grain as a defendant from the beginning the same claims against  that really a fair way to think about what you still want it that was the next thing that helen was going to engage in was to obtain the representations that would have been made to great american insurance which is required by the crop insurance hand verifiable evidence that the appellate east are to subpoena everyone in the management of the transfer or farming operation and to participate in the physical farming activities in order to authorize a transfer so had we been in this case are these representations on a form of a standard form that you like checked these things that you've had the requisite management yes your yes your honor in fact it was just entered form is the standard form of the record proper misrepresentations regarding the engagement and the management and actual physical activities in the case one thing i want to turn the court to really briefly is that the badges of fraud in this specifically the badges of product voidable transfer statute and here there are at least six batches of fraud that were present one the transfer obligation was to an insider to before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred the debtor had been sued or threatened with s succeed how does that help you it doesn't bring any more money back to the debtors it doesn't do anything really you have to respect what i said in that the political transfer statute ok we take the transfer back they get their e p a back how does that help you answer the question as opposed to making a whole new argument so wrap it up with just a few dependent not that many dependent clauses yes rather so specifically to answer the question it wasn't that helena was seeking a a void or