private funding management the petitioners in this case have overlapping theories recovery first of all they had vested in superior interests under eight fifty three the head resulting in constructive trust interests and they also were bona fide purchasers in various respects also in this case the petitioners challenge the criminal forfeiture based upon the non appropriation of funds as well as some of the language that was contained in defend purchase money resulting trusts these investments were not gifts the clear was clear and convincing evidence presented if you recall in particular mr cramer's testimony that she had no intention of giving a gift to her son in the investments that she made in these various properties and there was corroboration for her testimony first of all you had the sworn petition that that was on file secondly you had the bank records from her out because i think they're there they're somewhat different facts for each of them if you'd start out with foothill i would appreciate it ok in regard to foothill mr cramer testified that she paid one hundred ninety four thousand dollars of the purchase price forty four thousand dollars of that was sourced from her franklin templeton account which was an account that she had over the years that she got from interest and dividends under trusts that she had and then the balance of the hundred fifty thousand dollars came from the branch bank and trust account that was sourced from funds that she testified that she had received over time and also funds that came from the victory financial management services account which was in her day assuming for a moment then all she made one hundred forty thousand dollars investment of the purchase price but i'm i'm reading now from the district judge's order and i mean there may be a mistake in here the district judge says petitioner's terrace and private funding management claim this doesn't say that she's how much to do to contribute well i don't know the exact figure for a hundred kramer but i do know the exact figure for mrs kramer and that's one hundred forty thousand dollars and is that disputed i don't believe so i think the total purchase price was a possibly two hundred  sixty three thousand dollars and they they purchased that property out right now there was no mortgage on that property as i understand it so and what happens but is there any consequence in the fact that the property has been no longer the property of the defendant well what happened there was that mr trash was the former girlfriend of andrew kramer and so at some point in time he could claim the property to her she didn't give any consideration for that but what she did do was on the same day that she refers to receive the property she issued a grant deed to private funding because she was going to pay back private funding the amount of money that had been invested in the property by mr kramer but my home where my question is headed is the following if title had stayed with the defendant and his mother or his parents had contributed to the purchase price this resulting trust when he's no longer the title owner but somebody else's oh i see well in that case then you just go strictly to california law as to who's on title to say that whoever's on title the reason why we are presenting this under a we're sorting trust basis in addition to the other forms of recovery because these are overlapping is the fact that there was some challenge to the fact that andrew had deeded this property to miscue terrace for no consideration no you get that she's not of want to fight the purchaser right and not only that but there was arguments made in the district court concerning the bona fide is so to speak of that of that transfer or that he was simply trying to pass title to that property because he was under he had been arrested i know not quite arrest had been arrested yet but he was under investigation when that occurred i don't believe so because you still have a situation where somebody has made a proportional investment and if that person is not on title then they should be able to make a claim it are those of who the target interest and you probably don't have a case for that external properties l c which is an l l c and enter kramer's name where the kramers invested ninety six thousand seven hundred eleven dollars in mortgage payments there was this escrow money it was th that it's only the exclusive situation where you have purchased money on the front end but if you actually pay more make poor mortgage payments at a later date that that can also be considered result in trying to address the journey case what case gives and there was also the case of gomez versus could see a fifteen cal second three sixty three which dealt with the mother claiming an equitable resulting trust based upon payments that she made toward purchases and improvements to the property which was post b the actual acquisition of the property so what do you the district judges answer to that argument is that there needs to be shown showing with respect to whether or not the transfer really was intended to take or not to take a beneficial interest and that's right says that show the proper showing wasn't made well respond we believe that it has because of any number of additional facts you have on the foothill deed the language on the face of the deed the says the grand tour of the grantee maintain a proportional interest in the properties foothill deal with i think we're talking about when we're talking about human asked but the at this particular moment but the point is is that the fact that you have this proposed proportional interest language in the foothill deed carries  over in terms of her intent as to the other property so i wouldn't necessarily think that a matter of i say started out with respect to this transaction i don't see it i don't know with respect to the other sounds i didn't see him well why not amendment right but she testified that she had no intention of  making a gift the other thing is that there was a arguments by the government that there was a gift presumption but the gift presumption didn't apply when you had monies paid by her corporations necessarily to the toward here petitioners of not far from any evidence that cramer intended not to take a beneficial interest well time to district court seems to think that it's the defendant's intent rather than his mother's intent is that wrong i believe that's wrong i think you have to look at the person who's actually making the payments to see what their intent is and you know in this particular case you had a defendant who was enter entered into a plea grimmett where he was required to admit that all of these properties were proceeds of his illegal activity but that was only a presumption that vanished once all of this other evidence was presented the deed the language on deed the fact that there's no gift tax returns the fact that some of the money came from corporations rather than parent to son so there's not that gift presumption the continuing payments to keep the property  going the mortgages the taxes the expenses the improvements all of those things that presumption that there was a gift here then vanishes and then at that point the cases say that the government has to do a tracing to to show that the money that was used for payment of the properties came from illegal drug trafficking your i'd like to reserve a little bit of time  of really pointed question about whether transferring title extinguishes that claim let's start out with the case that's the best one for you and that's the foothill property rather see much of the hardest case free and that's the federal property ok so how do you how  beneficial owners of the property and not enter kramer once that property is transferred to another a third party or corporation that that whatever claim that third appellants have would disappear or they might have a claim against andrew kramer was he so the  private funding manage all the properties as the court noted all were purchased by under kramer and then immediately transferred to other entities so any claim anyone would have saying we were who are who and then i should know this but i don't this is the complication of this case i contest from it's a corporation with officers i don't know who the owner is but at the time of the corporate the time of the transfer and or cramer was was both he was the secretary of the corporation and he was he basically transfer the property to himself know that andrew it's ok and that's ok but if he owns it i try i will treat the transfer as essentially irrelevant but if he doesn't then we have the same question on the federal property that we do with respect to the brevity the property has been transferred to somebody else and the question is whether the beneficial interest survives the faster and you have cases the say yes or no i don't but i think a question you asked earlier is very relevant that about whose intent are we looking at if we're looking at the intent that's a different question i'd like you to answer the question in front of us right now and then we can go to that question do you have an answer to the question the only cases one way or the other feels is what happens the following sums let's assume that we have two parties one takes title to the property but the other has contributed half of the purchase price and of the journey case the person who contributed half of the purchase price has an interest in so that's that's an important part of journey to their it isn't just someone giving money there is giving money with the intention that they have this joint interest and that's what in this case you didn't get back to the point of intent you asked whose intent california evidence code six six two specifically says that the title the owner of property is presumed to be the owner full beneficial owner of the property absent clear and convincing evidence so when so when a property is transferred to someone else and that person is on title under california law they are about the other the theories are the same the theory the government's theory is that there was no evidence on the record that there was an intent of the parties that resulting trust arose you know it would have been useful if you had given me does your human in your brief it i didn't articulate it well ironic well you know i looked in vain for a citation to the journal case in your brief at the intent of the parties and there just isn't in the record there is no evidence and you look at one hundred kramer gets these properties he transfers them to me that's evidence of him a lack of evidence of intent that someone else should have an interest because he gets them in transfers and to a third party in addition there's compelling evidence that there wasn't an intent there's three instances where we have so there's two the high park in the chimney has properties that are also subject to the case was signed by the appellant rusal into kramer so in that case she's saying nevada external properties the titleholder is the true owner of the property in this case she's saying i'm the true owner of these properties that's pretty strong evidence that there is no intent that she be the true owner of the property if she says in another parallel civil case that someone else is true the true owner of that property and edition the escrow funds which we haven't really talked about yet it's like a real property because we're looking at who owns the property in that case they're also claiming a resulting trust based on payments made to mediation costs attorneys fees and the same applies in that case there was a civil case between enter kramer and a business partner that case settled as a result of that settlement and her kramer was given five hundred twenty five thousand dollars and in that settlement agreement itself it states that the  owner of all right title and interest in these prop in this in this in these funds so we have at least those three properties where there's again the burden that the district level was on the appellant's so we've got three properties where there was evidence not only of there was not in not only lack of evidence of intent there was evidence that there clearly wasn't an in t that these people be beneficial owners of the property because you've got these claims filed in the settlement where they're saying someone else is the owner of the properties plus you have where they can't leave property where kramer transfers it to that's pretty strong evidence that there's no intent that someone else be the owner because once he gets it he grinned use it to someone else so there's there's just no evidence in the record of this intent that's needed and the alternate theory which  really wasn't discussed this way of the constructive trust which is a fraud remedy trust there's also no evidence in the record that anyone was induced by andrew kramer to to give him money for these properties there's no evidence of a wrongful to do would they did with the properties i mean just because it's a wrongful act and just because they did this doesn't mean the two of them come together and that's when i think there's evidence of a constructive trust i want to address briefly one thing in the reply brief that was brought up for the first time in the reply brief and that was the government and i guess the courts realigned the district court's reliance on hearsay evidence that the civil forfeiture complaint tracing the bank funds that evidence was that that complaint like to comment briefly about the constructive trust argument that first of all there was no wrongful act and then it's been identified in the in the colloquy here that the wrongful act was the drug trafficking so well what the argument is is basically that when the government falls in the shoes of the defendant at the time of the preliminary order forfeiture that they shouldn't have be unjustly enriched so to speak by virtue of all of the things that have been done by third parties to improve the value of the property so when we talk about and he could tear is now faces a fiction if she were to lose that property  in her investing over ninety thousand dollars in improvements in that property came as a result of probably if that that property wasn't being going to be subject to forfeiture and the reason why it became subject and  and what basis did she have for believing that it was not subject for a picture because she had received she had been she received title of the property she defendant drug trafficking she had knowledge of the fact that he ran medical marijuana dispensaries now was her belief that running medical marijuana dispensary says if you follow california law is legal yes but if you'd asked a lawyer the lawyer would have said california law is irrelevant of the question of legality under federal law well it actually isn't relevant because under section five forty two of the twenty sixteen appropriations act there shouldn't then a prosecution in the first place whether it's prosecuted is a different question as to whether or not is illegal ok well in any of that she question comes out of the other argument and i'm a little slow but i think i got the point the argument is that well in order for there to be a truster that results because of the payment by say mrs kramer of the purchase price there has to be in ten by both parties both by this is kramer and by the defendant that this result in a trust proportionate trust that acars data or the law i don't see a lot of discussion of that in the cases put i do see for example in the decision out of the second circuit that there was even though there was a constructive trust case there was a discussion of the  parties and in that particular case they talked about inferences if the corking to call the facts that case it was only miss mrs khushi of the mother who testified that there was an understanding between the parties in it as they called it in the case an implicit understanding less than an oral agreement with the son that he would return monies that she had put forward and less interested in the second circuit than from the statement well so the question is does he manifest the intent that there's no resulting trust well all i can say in response to that is the fact that the resulting trust issue is often resolved the parties are unavailable because either they don't testify or they're deceased and so the courts have to look to other evidence to make a determination is not that this is not just a case of mr grammars alive and well right but he had no interest necessarily in breaching his plea agreement by maintaining that there was a resulting trust when that would have resulted in a breach his actions in transferring these properties to third parties that there was no resulting trust that was intended when in that transfer he makes no reservation of title or interest at all on behalf of his mother i think the ducks in order to jackson by people think we have that mind before you do i think i think that his the closest thing to his testimony is was written on the deed at the foot heel did at the time of transfer when it talks about the proportional interests of the respective parties the grand to grantees and i think that that in itself is demonstrative of his of his understanding that he didn't have total fee interest in the property that it was a proportional inter because it says so in the deed and therefore that along with all the other haven't said we've indicated corroborates mrs kramer's testimony shows that there was a resulting trust thank you thank you haven't they both sides