the real estate we respectfully disagree with the basic facts are set out in me memorandums but just for the highlight of the claim was acquired this property when they were married during the marriage of tracey the real estate the miller property was acquired in two thousand and seven as was the wealth in april of two thousand and seven the real estate was titled and tracy clements name individually tracy and nancy clement now subsequently divorce and february of two clement didn't really own the real estate she simply held an interest as that defined by statute isn't that correct your honor she was not titled on the real estate that is correct  however do you get ownership in property if you're not in title i believe that five hundred and eighteen point zero zero three subdivision three states the following and i quote part of it each spouse will be deemed to have a common ownership interest in marital property but doesn't that statute also go on to say that that's just for purposes of valuation that the interest in the real estate as marital property that vest doesn't mean ownership it simply means the right to have a valuation of that property for purposes of property settlement i mean isn't that the intent of the statute that may be part of the teds is also at the time of disposition or the time of the dissolution that the spouse has a common ownership interest in that real estate and has to be accounted for at that point about but it's a value ownership right because if if she didn't have ownership just take th hypothetical for a minute she just had a special interest and the court decided that she should receive this farmland then he would have had to transfer it to her correct yes all right but that's because he entitle the disposition in summary when you read it she received other real estate so it seems that she then was going to retain the real estate issue isn't that correct yeah i think it was a balancing act i wasn't involved in the dissolution but yeah i specifically says that nancy clement will execute and deliver it quickly but casey forgotten another provision and they want to have you not the one that says that it is sufficient to transfer title that that water be you recorded correct your right says at the end of the order and the permission you're citing does not say that it's necessary to transfer title for her to execute that day does it  to conflicts but the summary disposition is the is the issue that controls not that not the court order and when you look at that court order it appears as though there's just boilerplate language in there about a claim leading versus the condominium that was set out and does not include that requirement that there be a deed delivered on that part of it well if you interpret that the order the way you want to interpret it which is to say that it was necessary that she ex that deed before her interest was transferred don't you render the other prevention which i just referred to essentially a no let me know i believe they work very well together your honor their work together to say here's what it is and now you as a person of interest  going to come and do a real estate track search can read this order and it says you know that and the facts stated in that judgement says that nancy clement will execute and deliver a deed so it's done for the convenience of other parties not as a necessary agree with you and the result is that mrs clement individually issues the deed to mr clement individually your market just deal with the trust what does it get you well i think we have to go back there then your honor in that situation there is a fair issue of fact and then we have to go back to see if i want the issue affect your mortgages with the trust the trust never mr tracy's mr clements trust never on the real estate if there's deeds out there that is a factual question is who had the right to dispose of the real estate and to what extent was there real estate transferred but go ahead you know go ahead under the state law if her interest that doesn't vest until divorce can she transfer that into a trust i've i've not seen any research that indicates that you know a contingent future may be vesting for value kind of interests can actually be an asset held by a trust to even know that her trust held title or not held title but is that something she can even transfer into a trust what i believe she figure out whether or not it's ballot or not people can do things all the time but else but where in the record does it show that even her transfer from her trust would have been valid it doesn't because we never got to that point your honor they made bankruptcy judge rule that just as a matter of law  some real estate disposition within a self terminated her interest i think that's the key word it certainly did not terminate her interest now we have it at least at a minimum an ambiguity in the court order that says you are required to do something and if i'm representing somebody who says i am required the preparation and execution of the da by ms climate in july of two thousand and twelve he to go backwards that she had a marital interest correct if she was a corner of the real estate under the minnesota s process and having had experience in this case for the past two years there were various parcels of real estate that were held by this trust and by various different different items along those lines and i believe  she did as the trustee that is correct your honor but also you but she didn't transfer anything into him it was that was for purposes of valuation correct you want to elevate what this statute actually does she has never been in title has she ever name has not has not been on the title that is correct ok yeah i would agree with that however i think we have to look at that whether it's for evaluation or whatever where the statute says it's deemed to have a common ownership interest i think that is important for this court to look at that sense within itself says that you have an interest whether or not like the goes out and buys a piece of real estate and doesn't include a spouse's name on that property when she's not going to be happy about it but to i mean you know she has an interest in that property she may not be able to have a deed but there certainly is an interest in this court judge benson the state court judge recognize that at that point when in the summer real estate just position he essentially you're trying to do is to reform well st of all your opponent says this is more than just a scrivener's there you're trying to substitute a document that doesn't exist for one that different grantee different grant or what's your response to that it would probably clements trust or to mr clement that is still mr clement and he still has title to i really well under under minnesota law there are several requirements to essentially reform are there not there are and one of them is you have to prove mutual mistake or a mistake on one side and either fraud or an equitable conduct on the other side how have you proven that what evidence in the record is there that support ever had a chance your honor the bankruptcy wasn't your obligation to tender such evidence if you wanted to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not there should be a reformation you're out of the air and the factual question that was created st of all we're here two things one i believe the bankruptcy judge erred as a matter of law because it i court order say one thing on one side but there is an issue on the other side that with respect to the deed thank you thank you pointed out during mr dobbs presentation that the marital interest issue is not terribly relevant to the case at hand instead the impact of the summary realestate disposition judgment is of import in this case and it is dispositive and that's why as a matter of law your honour's the bankruptcy judge judge ridgway made the correct finding to grant summary judgment there's a number of confusing arguments that were presented the court there like to address but one quick clarification for the record there was some question in from judge doubt if i recall correctly about whether were the record is clear on on the title in the title passing from one part of the other based on the declaration from philip wood which was submitted in conjunction with the summary judgment memoranda it's clear based on trustees review of the title records that neither nancy clement nor nancy clemens trust was ever in  ownership of the subject property and furthermore other than what is described in the briefing from the appellant other than the but bung bungle transaction the tracy climate trust was never a true feeling or of the property at issue but what her trust have held quote an interest in the marital property is that something that can be transferred into a trust no your honor according to judge krause all in the in re johnson case which is cited in the briefing that submitted to the court a party who has a spousal interest in minnesota only has a case i think this is the your opponent point was about a transfer the spouse attempted during the marriage right now your honor it was before there was a dissolution decree no no your honor the fact pattern is so they're arguing that the distinction in their arguments searle's control so what how should we interpret sorrels and how should we respond to their contention with respect to the distinction in johnson i'm sorry are i follow your question a spouse during the marriage that they can transfer to another party that it's in his or her interests best at the time of dissolution that's when it's determined and defined right yes your honor and the addressing the debt and the judgment of cree on the division of property ok so isn't this whole issue then a red herring yes ok because it could be important thing is what did the dissolution decree and the district and the disposition judgment  ok so cereals johnson forget about it for well i don't need to get about a they do i would i would contend that they do are read in a harmonious fashion that until there is a  determination at dissolution the spousal who is not feel ownership doesn't have an ownership interest in the property in can transfer ok but we have that here too we have to have that we don't have to worry about what would have don't have to worry about ok yes thank you and let me let me just make read the facts in all that valuation that's required under the minnesota statute simply just never occurred so it wasn't a matter of determining her ownership interest it was perhaps a matter of the valuation would that be a proper application of the minnesota statute to those facts yes your honor their determining financial interest however at the action in of itself was a an attempt to  distribute the property and the husband maintain that that the wife did not have an ownership interest in the court did did find that ownership interests determined defined at dissolution for the purposes of just abuse and to the spouses and that case because it didn't happen they had an issue here as judge dow points out we don't have an issue and it's truly irrelevant what happens prior to the real estate disposition judgment against let's get out of the relevant stuff ok let's do that  and your honors when you look at the summary real estate disposition judgment as the court pointed out the fact that there was a it it's contemplated that a deed should be transferred order that we must respect does state that a certified copy of the judgment decree or some real estate just resistant disposition judgment shall be sufficient to transfer legal interest and title of the property judge ridgway found that of import and correctly so and under minnesota law and based on the court order that was interred and recorded prior to the bungled deed that was later drafted  dispositive in this case how how do you get from let's let's just say that we go back and say you know mr clement you need to transfer this to mr clement individually what does that do for the bank i'm not following the argument that that somehow generates a fact issue i mean isn't that mortgage still not correct or not in forcible correct your honor it would be one thing if  this bungle transaction was done correctly but it wasn't and so to the extent that it was necessary although we maintain it's not necessary to have a deed from ms clement to tracy clement of record recipient of a bungled transaction doesn't advance the bank's cause your honor to the extent that it was necessary to provide a deed the recipient of the deed was tracy climate which makes sense because he has the feeling or of the property in this climate only had a marital interest she couldn't transfer that interest to anyone in this room during her marriage and she couldn't transfer it to his trust let alone having her trust transferred to his trust in fact on that issue your honor the last cited in the briefing from the bank on it whether a trustee can transfer a trust interest is entirely correct but what the bank the banks position the reason why it's wrong is it has it's advocating a position in reverse trust can't trust can't transfer an individual's interest to another party it's a distinct as judge show dean pointed out it's a distinct legal entity so on the b of p question which is the heart  when you have in this situation your honor stranger to title because a stranger of title conveys a mortgage to a rd party financial institution  the real property at issue when it never had a fee interest the fact that there's notices are relevant they never had they were it would be different if they truly had an interest and the trustee might have been aware of a deed that was unrecorded but here there was an inappropriate deed that had no legal impact on the case at hand that was recall what you're doing is referring to the distinction between its being and forcible and notice of subdivision for that a party can rely on the summary real estate disposition judgment on the transfer of title in light of the fact that the summary real estate disposition judgment in this case you say stranger to title in some of the briefing or in some of the arguments it seems to say that the bank is the stranger to title it really is clement tracey clements trust that's the clement was to transfer to richard clement and that was binding the fact that we have this thing that happened outside of that i guess i don't understand how we go back and change that unless there was an amendment to the disposition because if i'm understanding the law correctly if you rely on that disposition you still don't have the trust involved correct ok correct and to the extent the parties during their dissolution intended to have the the assets transferred to a another party in amended really some real estate disposition judgment is available under minnesota law and c proceed the original disposition judgment that's that's recorded and the part any any any rd party can rely on that amended summary real estate disposition judgment but that didn't happen here they relied on the deed they relied on the deed which is the result of a bungled transaction in their words yes here your honour's when interpret the facts in america law there's really only one outcome nancy had the authority to transfer whatever interest she may have had at the time to one party her spouse tracy climate that's what the summary real estate disposition judgment accomplish when it was recorded convey its mortgage a mortgage to the bank therefore the bankruptcy court had a correct when it intrudes summary judgment in september and we request that this court  the court order thank your honour's thank you establish the facts stated in the judgment ok so the sum of real estate judgment order or disposition judgment is entered you read that can you come in and you read that and it says nancy climate needs to deliver a d determining all of her interest was terminated that's the word he used was terminated and never had you know you're trying to toss her some distinction between transferred and terminated that somehow it could be transferred pursuant to the disposition but not terminated judge ridgeway in his opinion said that upon the record in the summer rules they just position judgement it terminated all of her interests so it was not me correct if oliver interest was transferred from her to somebody else by reason of the disposition judgment no because and you rely on the facts contained within that process and my time is up thank you thank you thank you