first mortgage on a condominium and the question is you know did it you know it had the burden of proof both as a creditor and as a party moving for summary judgment birds of proof and so the question is whether it's a limited issues of fact on who own the claim and i said i'd like to point out a few things that are into record and that was before the bankruptcy court first verney had some questions yourself about hooves able to info you know who owned her alone and so she sent a letter to bank of america sometime and i think in two thousand and eleven before july of two thousand and eleven asking that question and she got back what is known in the debt collection trade as a debt validation notice from bank of america and this was attached as an exhibit i believe to the complaint and was  relied on it in the posing the motion for summary judgment by wells fargo and it said this debt validation notice which is at ph one sixty four the record also page one forty seven said the o adjustable rate mortgage loan trust passed through certificates series two thousand and five ish seventeen a different title presumably a different entity so that was before the bankruptcy court when the granite suddenly judgement the other thing before the bankruptcy that mere possession of the north indorsed mere possession of the note endorsed in blank was enough to establish their status as the creditor the creditor making a claim in bankruptcy under penalty of perjury but they acted why isn't that least according to the other side your client waived the argument that it was the instrument so they had everything they needed that's what the bankruptcy court because because i think the because the evidence showed that there were other entities they were they were presenting other entities as possible creditors as possible owners of a note and what was the harm that was caused by that if any but the harm is that you have an you say that it was represented to your client that other entities owned the note and that the debt was owed to these other entities but so far as i can tell none of these other entities ever sought to enforce the debt the only entity ever seeking to enforce the debt is wells fargo that and i think it's undisputed who holds this this mold i'm trying to figure out what if any harm there is from these representations th fargo that claims to be the owner of the old it's seeking to enforce an old far as i can tell no one else no other entity has such one force the note is your client worried that somebody else is going to come out of the woodwork and seek to enforce the mold all over well the you know she is concerned there may be another entity out there she's putting money aside in a court supervised account to pay eventually you know the creditors eventually prove to be the creditor and if that money then goes to it goes to an entity the attorney has put in a declaration then there's only one note which wells fargo has you could have someone come up you know for example nation star come out with an assignment which you know in a simon in july two thousand and thirteen which was i guess it has a problem with wells but the very fact we're asking these questions indicates that there is some uncertainty as to who you know who wants this know only maybe and your client's mind is there uncertainty because there's this  under the code to assert the right of the document that you have in your hand then have you relinquished your chain of title argument we don't accept the possession as  law in california and whether article three of the u c c applies to foreclosures liens against finding that applies to foreclosures and more i think the most important point is that well these entities involved as possible creditors in this case acted as though possession was not enough they for example in july two thousand and thirteen the proof of claim was transferred by a court file document from two nation star which means that under that transfer they should star would be the new creditor now if wells fargo was now we've taken you actually slightly over time let's hear from the other side and we'll give you a chance to respond  hours i was going to start here by pointing out that they'd met that that wells fargo is in possession of the original no that's indorsed in blank but you made that very clear here so i'm not really sure i mean that's the beginning and end of it as far as response that we pointed out that that was over that case national hardware or was overruled in one nine hundred thirty four despite his contrary claims in the california legislature amended the law to state that holding a mortgage secured by  of the negotiable instrument or even the non negotiable instability and the curse yet exactly you lose the know you have problems you have to do a lot of stuff to go to enforce it as long as you have it we're good here i'm one else some other person in the chain of brawny can and should pay and if he pays them the debt is discharged regardless of somebody else pops out of the woodwork later saying you hold no wrongfully i have rights to it in any manner so she has protected their wells done anything to enforce it interest against her prior to this bankruptcy well they assign i don't remember if a notice of default was recorded in this matter they did assign the deed of trust to the mercy assigned the i don't think it's particularly relevant here we acknowledge that she filed for chapter eleven bankruptcy we are not challenging the terms of her plan and assert that as long as she makes her plan payments then she will be able to keep her residence as such it is not in fact a residence i did want to address one issue that was raised the sort of proof of claim issue that they are conflating as we set forth in our brief a proof of claim has prima fashionability so that kind of changes did then with the burden of proof is moved over to them to challenge it so essentially all we have to prove on summary judgment are national burden is that we file the proof of claim in accordance with rule three thousand and two and then the burden shifts to them to show that there was some error in the claim or alternatively we can just prove the entire case outright we did both this matter but cyber the case that we can meet our burden in the event that the court found that a proof of claim was not filed in accordance of rule three thousand and two but they are in their opening and also or in the reply sorry and also in oral argument they sort of imply that the burdens are different on summary judgment than in a proof of claim issue they're not the prove a claim issue controls who has the burden of proof and that does affect how summary judgment proceeding goes forward so you would you would say that there's no reason for this court to draft or resolve any broken chain of title argument well i think that they're relevant to the proof of claim so yes the court could affirm in this matter by concluding that we had a valid proof of claim and all of the nonsense chain of title issues at least as we view them which by the way i do not think are supported at all by their brief some of the stuff was not like about the murders miles and report i do not believe was raised and even there in their opening brief but even if it was it's a relevant we could file a proof of claim and if the prove a claim included a copy of the no deed of trust and that's basically it then they would have the burden to show that we did not in fact have the no in our possession and then that we do that's it that's all that's required under california law it's the beauty in the curse of the negotiable instrument and we are the holder u nless the court has any further questions i'm happy to submit their made of my time ok thank you thank you that's fine first there's a notice of default which started the foreclosure process was recorded on may twenty sixth two thousand and ten and that is actually pages seventeen could come out there and maybe not try to collect money on the debt to try to foreclose so that that's out there and we don't and i might add under california law in the even of a case we don't have the obligation to california case that says that there is a california supreme court case not overruled explicitly by any other case that agrees with that that says that and they did brunner case which is relatively recent says article three but only versus wells fargo submitted for decision