mia please the court my name is karen hanks and i represent a far investments pool one l l c i like to reserve five minutes of my time for rebuttal argue will try to help you ok yes thank you this case presents the question opposite yes and so when take a moment just to talk about the definitions of both of those common missions contract is defined as a failure of performance or duty arising or imposed by an agreement or an  an agreement so cut the tort category is everything else non contract and when we look at the banks quiet title claim we can see right in the face of the title of it it is imposed by statute even title i causes damage to somebody else assuming that's the general common law definition of a tort what duty was breached here well unfortunately your honor i think that tort that you not have a traditional reach of a duty and causation one of them is highly right in their brief and that highlights what their claim is akin to wrongful foreclosure a wrongful for closure i would say you are only to the extent that because of the split lien nature of a lien in nevada where it has a super priority component and as a priority component they are alleging in claiming that when the h away for invalid it is void so yes i do believe that they are stable or closure on that lien is in wrongful in fact they have it right there at paragraph if you seven of their claim that it was to apply an arrest when sixteen in a with is there any case anywhere else in the country that's ever addressed this issue no your honor and that's a point that i want to make in the contract so now that i've talked about the  believe it does fit the tort category let's talk about how it doesn't in any way shape or form fit in the contract category and that's because they admit they readily admit that there is no this is not in force now and so in that regard we know there is a document that describes what you have to do to violate the terms of the homeowners association and then there's the there's a process that permits you to foreclose i did lots of real estate law for a long time and the contract in my mind it is that contract that was foreclosed on right no your honor that's the distinction i would agree with you and that's what the smith case stands for if you're in forcing the deed of trust and the know y that went forward super priority if you will about what was originally the st you to trust wiped out now you got the government or the government conservatory if you will claiming that you took their property you didn't have a right to do that you said oh yes we do because we have a contract or we have a right under the horrors of documentation to foreclose and nevada law says we can do that did i so i agree with you when the h away is for closing they are enforcing their i mean that's not what the banks claim and the banks claim is challenging that they are not from the perspective of forcemeat action because they admit that it's they're challenging the validity of the sale and so while the property interests sure the deed of trust in the note is what gives them even a foot in the door it's not what they're claiming is premised upon it the other way the mere existence of the note does not invalidate the sale nor does it even trust if they had pled quiet title and you take four thousand six hundred and seventeen j three off the table they did not have that right that congress granted them and pled we have a note and we have a deed of trust and therefore the h away for closure still is invalid that complete would be dismissed on its face that's how you know their claim is not dependent upon  order to even have a foot in the door you have to have a property interest that sure that your you're claiming was affected but in order to invalidate the sale you have to have something else that's why the note itself is not what invalidates the sale that's why we can't confuse standing or what gets their foot in the door with what the substance of their claim is this question in this case is not whether they have standing to be here the question is what is the stache limitations governing your claim and i want to highlight in every single an arrest won sixteen challenge in not here take not take it here ok i'm not here a situation every single lead holder has that one thread in common they all have standing to be there they have the property interest but their claim is not been not one case not one jurisdiction or judge in nevada or any other jurisdiction that has treated a quiet title claim like we have here as a contract and in fact the banks don't even argue i zero the ones i've read because we've got a bunch of them either applied the quiet title statute of limitations or the catch all it toward statute of limitations as i recall it was much shorter none of the divider cases i've read have ever applied t that's because andrew t is acting solely as the nominee of freddie mac as the district court found freddie mac owns the deed of trust and he has the service or her and it's acting as freddie mac's no money which is conservator that runs with the property a property protection provision typically that's going to be honest so someone who was assigned to an asset out of an f b i see receivership or has to either be a to order a contract the problem in this case is that this is really not exactly either and so tell me what tell me how we work through whether this is or toward or a contract year your friend says well you're not really seeking to enforce contractual rights you're seeking to enforce some other right that comes out of a statute so maybe it's closer to or toward than a contract the truth is that if we were looking at this with no restraints we would say it's not over it's something different so how do we figure out which is closest to i agree  in a contract now is a contract between the conservator and s f are no of course not but our assets are and the conservator strangers certainly now in fact they have a very close legally recognized relationship to each other all of us states we each have an interest in the same property and we each are acting as the successors of the parties who severed those interests traction really  barking and the lender may ask you a question about that because it came up in your friend's argument is the relief you're seeking to invalidate the foreclosure sale or simply a declaration that  absolutely not absolutely not that to be in a statute everything that's not a tort must be a contract and everything is not a contract was being toward because it's a binary statute for purposes of here the for purposes of here is a limitation provision a court must categorize them in one way or the other my friend is saying is anything that is not a strict contract in force and claim is really a poor action and that's all there is a whole universe of claims that are neither contract nor force and one of the most interesting cases that we can talk about recognizes that station in a very significant way is m contract not for question is what do we do with that as i say we could look at this and see that it is grounded in a contract in a contract where the parties to the dispute today are the successor interest on the property for the other states side of it we are the successor that interest to the parties to the original contract so although we're not trying to enforce the contract right in a formal contract and for not trying to invalidate the sale in any way where what the statute says is no property of the agency shall be subject to foreclosure or say so stick to means affected by it we're actually applies here and it protects our game and if it just doesn't invalidate the sale in any way it's simply prescribe steve effect of the sale on our property not  conservatorship the situation here as most if there's any doubt whether it's a contractor for our entire discussion has been is not it's gotta be really afford is that it's somewhere in between and we have discussion about so i think we're w much for your argument thank you your honor i have some time yes i want to address it's not a false dichotomy is the dichotomy that congress put in place its tort or contract there is no other dichotomy and when we look at out in the ether and it might even have created a relationship between the parties all that's not here we have no relationship with reading math as of our doesn't that that contract is not what controls the clain the cleaning there was damn interest you actually had a jurisdiction that was treating the claim as a and had features of that that's not here that's not true here there is not one court in nevada or any other jurisdiction has ever treated a quiet title claim like a no word as they're clean see to enforce any provision of that deed of trust in terms of its promises or its obligations of the borrower same with the no they'd even go so far as the take the position in this case is we asked for the note we asked for discovery in irrelevant that's what their answer was it's irrelevant and it's not even proportional for us to produce it that's what the bank argued so this would be the st action in the history of the united states that would be contract and yet you don't have to produce the contract the court not dealing with the contract is not analyzing the contract and somehow they're clean as morphed into a contract i want to make a final court with put it invalidated in sale the term extinguishment in for closure ok the statute clearly provides you cannot for close on agency property and they successfully argue that you can use that not only with extinguishment you are absolutely invalidating and response sixteen sale when you are saying