important in looking at this case the trustees position is that you have to look at this situation from the point of view of the creditors of the state when you have who are using the limited resources of the estate to pay for the college tuition of adult children and the question before the court is whether or not who should suffer the university or the key issue here is whether or not the debtors received reasonably good will and value now the value there's no question there's value being provided but the value being provided by secret heart university is being provided to students be in this case nicole palatino the question is whether or not the parents are receiving the reasonably equivalent value and it's a trustee's position that that's not the case which creditors can recover but college tuition in this case the education that's being provided by sacred heart university isn't it education that is being provided to the student not to the parents and there's absolutely or i think the the key to this is that there is no obligation if you look at the language of five forty eight and how it defines value satisfy actionable legal obligation is val as a matter of fact i'm handling these cases for a number of different trustees mostly in connecticut this is my only massachusetts trust me that i'm representing but i typically don't bring cases where there is a divorce decree of them and all three of them although due to the eisenberg his of both is primarily on a different issue but the pennsylvania cases seem to be creating an exception saying that parents have some sort of expectation of paying for the undergraduate but not to graduate education although there's no principled distinction between them i think trustees position that that's a legislative question that's something that is not really for the courts to decide it's for the legislature to decide and in point of fact the connecticut state legislature has so decided recently and really restricted my ability to recover  funds for trust decent is there anything in congress going on in congress it is an act that has been proposed in congress so far it hasn't gone anywhere it may or may not go somewhere in the future that's politics but the point is that that is a political question and it is a question for congress to decide and it would be the trustees in the bad is that where if there is going to be a carve out that there that's where the car better to her and in fact if you look inside ignore this same sort of analysis and to please when trustees used to be suing churches to recover amounts that had been hired by parishioners and  most courts found that those types of things were in fact problem transfers because the debtors were insolvent and they were making payments to churches for which they were not receiving reasonably equivalent value congress took exception to that pursu by trustees and passed a limited exception allowing tithing in a certain amount and set forth specific parameters and that's how the system is supposed to work that's the trustees position that if congress wants to carve out this type of situation as they did in the cases they cast congress has so far has chosen not to do that in this case ok so supporting the other side says that equitable considerations are allowed to come into play is that true under five forty eight in front of the bankruptcy judge i don't believe it is your honor i think case law supporting that proposition that the equitable considerations to not come into play not well i think you still have to look equitable considerations may be able to be considered but they still have to be considered within the statutory framework you still have to have you have statutory definitions of value that are in the bankruptcy code you have value as being realizable concrete and economic and in fact the bankruptcy judge in this case ignore that line of cases but try it to artificially construct a notion that the debtors were receiving value and the debtor focus is focused on testimony that gave and it's our position that what the debtors think they're getting isn't the point the point is what from the standpoint of the debtor and their expectations it's from the standpoint of the state and the creditors that you have to learn let me ask you this about the creditors then and still my sticking with these questions about equitable considerations because role in this specific case is that something that can be considered as an equitable consideration you're searching for a broader role but i just want to deal with the cases in front of me for right now sure tuition payments i can tell you moron of that i don't bring cases where the child enters college at seventeen of the payment is made that's fine i want to know if it would make a difference in the case law yet you wonder if the child is under age i think nicole to get that education it was necessary for her parents to provide some support in the form of paying for portion of the tradition and other costs there is no dispute a child is considered dependent up to the age of twenty four in order to receive federal financial aid the pedophile natural aid student aid form requires parents federally guaranteed loan is that what we're talking about can you put it in the context certainly honor for all accredited universities and colleges students and parents  must must complete with called the net with a free application for student net financial aid ok so it depends on there being an application for financial aid but it is required for any student who's the cole was not eligible for student aid base on the income and assets of her parents in this case no hole was dependent on her parents she was clipped declared pendant on the on the parents tax returns while of course she was what does that have to do with this what has to do with this is because not only do the federal financial  laws they other last point to the fact that parents are expected to provide an education undergraduate education to their adult children parents can claim an exemption on the tax returns for children up to the age of twenty more provided the student is involved full time for at least five months out of the her as a set up to the ages one may well policy providing an exemption and there is no obligation there is no legal obligation and i agree that there is no legal obligation independent child from which the parents would no longer provide support constituted recently a quibble and value he found that the parents had a reasonable expectation that that child would be financially independent upon receiving it for her education and it would be self sufficient the evidence making the argument that because they saw a tad studio option for the payments that that was the reasonable value i think that's a factor i think instead your argument or is your argument earn more than a child with merely a high school diploma that they are going to be healthier had jobs with with pensions and and insurance that they there be that forty percent of the children between ages twenty four and thirty nine without a high as well education are going to be continue to live at home and without a high school that over a forty year full time work life that college educated children are going to make sixty five percent more than a student with her children with only a high school missionary dependent additionally they would be obedient a better position to support their parents if it's necessary in the future because they will have the financial resources as well as good relationship because clearly providing an education for the children will foster a healthy relationship between parents and children you are as i said there are other other laws that also support the concept that parents should continue to provide provide financial assistance to their children into early adulthood this is not sufficient i already directly already reference forcing the bankruptcy code based on the facts and circumstances of the case and instead rely upon congress to address every theory the trustee comes up with and that's just simply not reasonable  maybe he had been there and yes your honor i also think that this really is a question of law it's a question of looking at the at at how you look at value  you look at it at the time the value received at the time of the transfer the possible benefits that might accrue years later why or why do you look at it at that point is because when you're looking to see whether the statute requires the creditor in the case of you have to be a or the trustee in case of the bankruptcy code to prove that an insolvent debtor made a transfer for which the they did not receive reasonably good value at the time of the transfer that's the way the statutes construct it and so the time that you look at it is at the time of the transfer why because that's the way the the legislature rather than ok what's what's the point of that well the point of that is the the idea behind the statute is that you want to keep the pool of assets available for creditors the same that the reason for it constructive transfer where assets that would otherwise be available for creditors those assets should be remain available for the creditors to ask your question or are then subject to the supervision absolutely and so the determination of whether to chase them or not is solely in the hands of the trustee the court really has if the if the trustee goes after them the court has no choice but to bless that i think that's right as a matter of under section five forty six of the code and in fact there are other exceptions besides the tidings that congress has deservedly carved out for example five forty six c in the context of securities transactions