let me ask you this just jumping to right to it do you concede that the opinion in re comments a stablished that at that time a personal property tax lying under the california revenue on taxation code section twenty one ninety one valid against any purchaser for value of value including a b p except where the purchaser is without knowledge of the lane not notice that the making such an assumption the ban improperly enhance the status of the debtor in this appeal as a hypothetical be a p under valued forty five forty five two were in the language does not exist that it's a purchaser without actual knowledge as a supposed to notice in addition a reading of five forty by two does not reveal any intent the hypothetical b a p with lack of actual knowledge when the how and why am i correct in the fact that it's my understanding that the county did not record its judgment lane against mainland with the secretary of state that's right that's not and so why not that's not required by the statute in fact if yours appears you're saying the enactment of civil procedure code section six ninety seven point five ten doesn't require to do that that's correct because let me tell you is doesn't apply to you that statute doesn't apply let me get in for fact that may i talk about that first of all the reason why the state legislature enacted twenty one ninety one point four was to make it cost effective and the reason it's recorded in the county recorder's office is applies only to personal property in the particular county if you run a title report it's going to show up on the title report there's no need to record with the secretary of state doesn't make any sense that legislative was brought into effect after the cummings case was decided and that's what the why did he wait so long to challenge the commons case well you ought to ask humboldt county that issue it hasn't come up before your honor we were only brought into this after judge brand in the bankruptcy court it was brought to her pension this argument came up now what's interesting is she in the summary judgment granted the county's favor under five forty four acres she didn't find actual knowledge and so in a footnote the appellate says we should have appealed that and we'll bring it to the court attention and maybe they can reverse that decision but what we're looking at here is really what is the effect of the new or has the judgment in effect of any judge it has the effect of a judgment lien so there's no need to record one the reason why the legislature put that language in it is so that the counties don't have to record it with the that mean it clearly says it that's exactly what it says so in other words if this debtor did not have actual knowledge of the lien on personal property the liens not valid if the debtor did have actual knowledge of you know purchaser if they had actual knowledge of the lien knowledge and not notice then it would be enforceable there's a strong difference between notice and knowledge and the bab's decision regarding personal property tax liens have created an untenable situation that forces county state wide to acquire great expense with the statute twenty one ninety one point four that came into effect the without seeking relief from the automatic stay the baptists ignored as the main purpose in enacting twenty one ninety one point four and your honor has stated it was to save the counties time and money in and forcing  collection of a delinquent personal property tax on personal property located within the specific county there's no reason for the county to do this that's why the legislature brought that into effect to save the county time and money by recording in the county where the personal property is located anybody can look that up by getting a title report there is no need to extend the kind of title report and other words if you do a business deal you look four point four the in the title report under the real estate liens on that property but are they let's assume estate real estate out of the equation then ok well that and i'm just the guy that wants to buy i mean the cummins case would you have about five hundred dollars worth of equipment no one's going to do a lean search for that they're going to buy it going to sell it but now you have a company that's got equipment under under security interest it's got real estate  didn't you know i might be the dumbest guy in the room here so i just you know make it simple make it simple ok it doesn't matter now to you why this is a simple fact if they don't have knowledge personal knowledge  it doesn't apply and the words they take three that they take three so it really doesn't matter you know that's a simple as i can get it yeah ok so so then what is your best argument as a matter of federal law bonafide purchase thirty even if he or she has actual knowledge of the underline if they have actual knowledge that under five forty four this case is brought under five forty five point two that's not before the court five forty four your honor this is brought under five forty five point two which talks about actual notice not knowledge that's why there is a difference here on that and that's why it's important from vi forty four eight the actual knowledge requirement which is a higher standard than what's in the five forty five to which is the actual notice the other that's the problem and only we don't know that your honor and that's something that this court can remand back to the bankruptcy court to make that determination did the debtor have actual knowledge of this when there's been no determination then that of the district court or the back determine in the counties fabre there would be a discouragement of the attorneys fees and we can reopen the case and the bankruptcy court has reserved jurisdiction to allow that to happen and that's why this case is not move you really are just requesting that we be man for determination of actual knowledge i think that's a solution to this case your honor  otherwise finding that the bat improperly looked at the wrong bank united states code i asked you for what authority even let's assume they have actual knowledge does that really change that i'm going to ask if i'm an  after eleven this it is their own trustee and have those rights there for the actual knowledge is irrelevant to this determination so your response to that it needs to be remanded to determine actual knowledge  hypothetical bonafide purchaser the debtor has that position and by definition will not have actual knowledge of it if you're a bonafide purchaser and the reason for that is it puts secured creditors ahead of unsecured credit is that what they're trying to do essentially i believe your honor if i understand your credit question correctly i say we're good paying off the debts they can write and it's to give creditors equal status and say when you file bankruptcy was this lane perfected what are your rights what would they be in terms of lien priority outside of bankruptcy for third parties the county saying and hundred county law they have protected their lien simply by recording it with the county they don't have  different method for perfecting personal property liens at the time they had to have a levy essentially now it's through a recording with the secretary of state so your position is that cummins is still good law ye i don't believe that the change in how you perfect personal properly and strange is that analysis it just changes how that lee was perfected you need a recording with the secretary of state it's not a large burden for the county the statute has an and either of them discussed the legislative history the reason for that is because it doesn't provide any help to the analysis it simply says the purpose for the such it is an easy way to get the liens there's no question it creates a lien it has to do with perfection so i just want to make sure i understand your argument as you're presenting it so the way i understand what you're saying is that that the county's personal property lenstra not become valid against purchaser upon the county's filing of the ring with the certificate of record with the county that's for i'd say and then that yours i understand your argument to be that section twenty one ninety four twenty one ninety  california revenue and tax code provides that for such a certificate to lean upon care property shall not be valid against a purchaser for value or encumbered encumbrance or without actual knowledge of the lane when he or she acquires his or her interest in the property right at that first and then i understand that you're saying that section six ninety seven point ton of the california revenue and tax code which was an acted after common provides for the perfection of a judgment lien against personal property by recording it with the secretary of state is that my following you yes you are you are right i know it's a lot of statutes involve people are energies that taxes are going to go bankrupt so the county instead of just recording with the county as it believes it's sufficient would have to record every aso with the state yes your honor i don't believe that's a burden they are already recording these with the county there's no reason why they can't do another reporting with the state that's not burdensome failure to do so goes against the general standards for personal property liens personal properly is recorded with the secretary of state that's where people look for them if they're somewhere else it's going to upset that general scheme of doing things and the revenue code section twenty one ninety one point four doesn't change that the exception it's unclear that there are intending to leave that i section in question now the legislature went ahead after cummins and decided to add this new code section to allow the counties to coordinate the lean in the county where the personal property is located to save the counties substantial money what you're talking about is getting a judgment lien you have to get a judgment when it's not just like recording a lien with secretary of state you have to get a judgment lien and that's expensive and  come and said if we had an analogous down to it which the legislature enacted subsequently after cummings and i believe your honour's they aren't having that statute and recording in the county recorder's office is sufficient otherwise it's going to create a statewide crisis with counties having to go to the burden and expense of recording this getting a judgment lane and taking it judgment lien and then record it if you win with the secretary of state so that's the burden and expense and when you look at all the counties in the state of california it's not just los angeles county the expense is quite a burden the on that thank you i don't get the expense argument either i mean couldn't the legislature passed a law that says once you get they don't file their income tax their personal property tax returns they don't pay right and but i think the major thing here is look under five forty four eleven u s c section five forty four and five forty five and see what the bankruptcy appellate panel did by transferring over personal knowledge to