though there are many issues that have been raised for this court to rule upon the st issue i'd like to discuss because i believe to be the most important issue at least from from plane of side or appellate side rather to be resolved by the district court property and his bankruptcy petition and the ballot you have his property in the insurance claim in fact as a set forth in the in the district court's order the district court based this upon its belief and specifically i believe a question from the district court at the hearing on this issue of how is a reasonable juror or able to find or reconcile how acquired six hundred thousand dollars and property from the time of the filing of the bankruptcy immediately fifty three thousand nine hundred and fifty one dollars and seventy cents can be stricken as a sales tax beyond that digging digging through the the contents list there's many items where they example that stuck out to me or there is a there are thirty eight thousand five hundred dollars worth of taxidermy items elke beyers dear amounts i believe there is a group or a striver involved in there that explains a variance in terms of value of these items listed at a garage sale or what you could sell sell those items for would be very minor versus what you would replace them for is significantly greater council i hears anything is that are talking about a difference and this is format years between nine thousand which is what you characterize the garage sale value and six hundred and seven thousand dollars which is what's characterize i think the replacement value i  trying to get at in terms of those items that that you take many things to get to that amount and the other important thing to remember is that six hundred thousand dollar number that we have that is estimate of what he believes or thought the replacement cost to beat which is which it's not that the that those were his best guesses based upon of his of his property based upon internet research his attempts at coming up with a best replacement cost value the actual replacement cost value is in the record vigilant had a company called in serbia which provides property valuation services in total fire was three hundred and twenty five thousand eight hundred and twenty five dollars sixty seven cents which is a significant disparity in terms of income required to purchase so that's another that's that's essentially one of the main reasons why i brought this up was that it's not six hundred thousand dollars in property it's purchase the next portion that i didn't feel was appropriately considered by the by the district court was mr there was some confusion essentially caused d by rick and i'm going to start confidentiality agreement and it never got specifically entered into the record mr mayor mr refers to a combination of his profit sharing halliburton a retirement account and the settlement that lawsuit as quote his however in profit sharing it caps which is not a profiteering account all of those proceeds were given to his brother linda in the mid ninety's i believe ninety five or ninety six counsel also had no counsel during that deposition limerick's took the th amendment repeatedly and alternated back and forth between saying he did not recall and asserting his th meant i mean privileges prior to that deposition which is actually attached as exhibit b i believe that deposition authored a letter which asserted the fact that he had received mr rick because profit sharing proceeds as well as his lawsuit settlement proceeds and that whenever rick needed to buy something to remodel his house to do anything of that nature all he had to do it was ask and he would give him that money there is certainly an issue of fact relating to the money that was available to go in order to purchase the items between the bankruptcy and the time of the loss and also very importantly that has always been the claim from  the very st recorded statement examination under oath deposition it has always been claimed that though that property was purchased between the time of the bankruptcy and the time of the fire and it's also that claim is also backed in that the same contents list on that constance list created by me there are dates of items purchase and something along the lines of eighty percent eighty five percent of those items are listed subsequent to the bankruptcy a no there are no credit card receipts or sales receipts or anything right for those correct that's correct there are not and but again it's the same same thing over there has although that it would make this case much easier and i don't think we would be here if their w is in cash and that is that is supported i don't believe it's i'm not certain whether it's in the record or not in the bank in the bank records that were provided to vigilant when vigilant paid out some of the initial living expenses like mediately immediately subsequent to the fire living expenses some money to purchase clothing and things of that nature that was a bank account reflects that that was immediately withdrawn and turned back into cash  there's been no questioning i've no idea why they are that way but they they operate solely virtually solely in cash they have these accounts that some of their monthly expenses are paid out of things like the the mortgage payment the insurance they dish satellite television and things of that nature but everything else is in cash so that is that is not not not  but that is it's our claim that it's not required that if this court holds that credit card receipts in most cases things of that nature are required then it any any person that were to operating cash or not have receipts or not be able to produce not did not report income tax returns in fact for the majority if not the entirety of this time period if you did not file tax returns and the only thing i can say i can say on that topic is that i think your honor that mean that is an issue for you know for potentially a tax court the the fact whether he did or did not reporting i don't think is required for the purposes of this case whether i mean we have the facts and we have testimony  evidence to show income and it's up to a jury to decide whether or not they believe that you know i want to i want to follow up on the credit card receipt point because i mean when we're talking about a discrepancy this big in terms of replacement value versus what  was reported earlier for big ticket items say it or capture something like that we expect people even operating it cash to have receipts for big ticket items and so on i guess my point has is you know what's not reasonable about requests and i'm not talking is it does not discuss some sort of a weighing of the evidence in all those cases that are discussed the evidence is not there was no controversy whatsoever as to the purchase of new property  in williams in need bought there is no evidence whatsoever the insurance did not argue that they had purchased new property that they didn't make that claim something as simple as that it's my container it's our contention that the claim alone would be would be sufficient it is a jury's point to determine whether or not the property was purchased but beyond that if we don't just have a bare claim we actually have a factual basis for the source of  funds and i've as to receipts i would just simply say mean that that's not required if that's going to be required by the policy then that you need to be included in the policy language to let someone know on the front end you need to be retaining receipts for you or for your big ticket items plus again we have to remember that this is a fire that occurred i mean there has been testimony that in the record in the examinations under oath in depositions all of their their documents personal records and things of that nature were destroyed this was a total loss fire i believe there's pictures in the deposition of the fire investigator someone took you know took a picture of this fire fully involved it was a two story home and the flames on the on the on the house ark another two stories up and above that  so even if they had kept you know receipts invoices things of that nature they would have been most certainly destroyed in the fire the only receipts receipts invoices or anything that would have been retained would be you know credit card debit card and since that's not the way that and certainly the time frame to which the clause applies is a limited by the phrase before or after the loss there is no ambiguity in the policy there are also a number of aspects of this case which are simply not in dispute there is no dispute that in two thousand  that counsel just raised about the receipts and occupation burning up in a fire you did not buy an eighty five inch flat screen television in two thousand and fifteen with cash flow of yard sale if you buy that from a store if it even existed in two thousand and fifteen you could even buy a television and that store would have an electronic receipt for that purchase one thousand two hundred separate items and not a single receipt from anywhere or any specific accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars for the personal property in a fifty two month period especially considering that the mortgage on his property was in excess of seven hundred and fifty dollars giving him a four hundred and fifty dollars a month deficiency even though for you tak separation the other expenses he claims that so your phone insurance food electrical bills this man was on a fixed income not support the claims purchases and while he claims that he receives seven hundred dollars per recall giving his brother money and was not aware of any account from what you could take money to give to mr moran significantly you also refused to answer questions about whether mr x was employed by him citing is a member i don't believe it's an issue for the tax court to decide whether mr is telling the truth before or after this loss or during this loss it is significant that he claims to a bankruptcy court that he has no property and then makes this claim later it is significant that he has claimed that he cannot work and has disability payments but yet then claims he gets seventy dollars a week for working those are all significant points and the district work properly concluded that no rational juror could reconcile the disparity between the pallets contents plan and its income especially considering this negative reported income to expenditure ratio now let me speak to the issue of the number you want as mentioned six hundred and seven thousand dollars which was the count of the contents list amount but even if you assume that the actual value of the d that number is the three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars indorsed by in serbia that still amounts to six thousand two hundred and fifty dollars a month every month in cash that mr had to have to buy this property fifty two months can do the court said the download judge holmes was very clear in saying the court's required to give all reasonable inferences in favor of the appellant and the plaintiff but not unreasonable inferences and not those at odds with the facts quite simply the co blew the math did not add up judge let me ask you this council which is just mentioned that three hundred and twenty five thousand or whatever from serbia why isn't that the number we've looked at comparing it to a six hundred dollars whatever it is seventy cash that no one is testify that he received at best he's testified that he received two thousand eight hundred dollars when you back up the deficiency image and other he's got if you believe that issue about the cat he's got approximately two thousand three hundred dollars a month which doesn't come anywhere close to the numbers that everyone has agreed upon judge homestead retched offers no evidence to demonstrate he purchased additional property since his bankruptcy let alone probably valued almost three times greater than his gross income and this is where said could be validated and almost everything he said could be refuted by concrete evidence every time you asked mr mirecki for evidence he'd make a statement and then when documentation was received it wouldn't support it he turns to his brother and says my bro there gave me this money and my is brother says i don't recall giving in in the month these misrepresentations made by mr regattas populace will material and they were intentional he claims hundreds of items of having obtained in a fifty month period just to give some context one hundred and twenty six dollars pairs of shoes twelve firearms which he wasn't legally allowed to possess twenty pairs of dress pants thirty pairs of dry shorts twenty pairs of work hands and the list goes on and on a bear skin rug in a fifty two month period that he purchased all magically with cash that never showed up anywhere in any docked with and no one other than it testifie normal as a club kids in the toy person would do and apply a normal value to what he was claiming there are groups of items he has forty thousand dollars for miscellaneous items which are impossible to calculate but to the extent that they could  they found no remnants of nine separate televisions in the in the women's nothing was a minor i those a spoon ear a buckle there but almost nothing was left of the one thousand two hundred dollars items they could not validate anything of any and that's what brought this situation to examination the wrote was it when there's nothing to be validated in the rubble we have to ask questions and when we ask questions and the answers that are given are either proven to be false or not verifiable in  error and which is not giving notice i think that's an interesting issue but the district court kind of made it you know i made a ruling and what the district where i think was referring to was the anti summer case and princip wondering what use is it to send this back down to the district court on that particular issue even if you're right on procedural  is that we have to respect the procedure st you may very well be right your honor that the court has to look at this and say substantively you're not going anywhere with this claim but we have the right to be heard on that we have the right to notice of that and quite frankly we need the mr c them to argue that at the at the hearing we had that it was simply not an issue because we believe there was issue of fact that visit would have to testify to certain points that were still in dispute about what was paid and how it was pay so the court by depriving us of the right to argue that didn't allow us to deal with those legal issues the notice is there for a reason and it's to give us the chance to be heard and to argue the points you want to argue in the court and the court may well decide substantively that we're  i'd like to briefly discuss the property just to point out a few things and then rebut some of the value policy largeness made vigilance argument as to the property wavers back and forth between didn't purchase the property and then the property was not in the home simply an argument that it did not exist i just want to make it clear that the district court did not have any sort of a finding related to the property did not exist although that is certainly a very large portion of the argument portion for denying the claim there were multiple witnesses that had that testified they had been to the home and seen these various items and have testified to the existence of the property so that that should not be in issue we have testimony regarding the existence of the property as well as photographs we were able to find photographs of the property so part of the deposition was to go through photographs of the home showing these various items throughout the the home so the the issue for the court to consider is whether or not they were purchased certain items were purchased subsequent to the bankruptcy or other items were listed and valued in the bankruptcy specifically if one thing i did not bring up earlier i do want to point out  in the record at the appendix page four thousand one hundred and thirty two dollars is the portion of the examination under oath way or the numbers as stated in the record that gave to his brother limericks or administration on his behalf  between two hundred and fifty million five hundred thousand dollars which that three hundred and twenty five thousand dollars number appears squarely in the middle up so the testimony regarding income or ability to purchase these items is certainly in the record further as related to mr moran limerick's because taking the th amendment that negative inference should should benefit plaintiff as he has no reason to take the th amendment but for protecting himself from about yes i i think perhaps it's a procedural error but i don't think it's worth remaining and i think that the court has explained in its order appropriately that before the only way for beings left to be able to recover that would be if they find that the the it's damage in that instance arose from mr murray because fraud which it clearly did not its obligation under the policy to the mortgage or arose from the policy of the fire and it's and it's seps separate contract with the mortgage holder