issue there's a lot of periphery around it but the issue is whether if forged deed passes title in the state of hawaii example i would use your honor would be somebody counterfeits a bill the statute runs and counterfeiting has a long statute after that standard runs you don't get to use that bill it's still a forged instrument and when you use it it's uttered the pull out court which ruled in nine fourteen addressed that issue and consistent with other holdings in other states held and has not been reversed that when a deed is forged it is void which i take for at the get go and it doesn't get sure unless it's addressed unless someone does something and that's why we're here today your honor that's why we went to the district court no portillo ruled on this issue the issues there is a state court case that's on appeal it's still pending before the intermediate court of appeals here there's been no well argument set in that case but as we've stated our brief able to show that there's no diversity this isn't ship is such that it's diverse the difficulty that we've run into is that one of the and one of the parties is not a person it's an organization are rules you have to not you have to show that all of the owners of the organization when their citizenship is determined there still diversity jurisdiction i look to the record i don't see where that and i don't see where that has been handled at all in the case so i'm not sure we have diversity jurisdiction or you are lucky for me i pled an alternative jurisdictional basis that this is related to a bankruptcy case pending in this jurisdiction i always like the button i'm up your honor and i did in this case what you're saying is that you have not considered that issue and so you're not in a position to tell us whether we have diversity jurisdiction but you want us to go off on jurisdiction pertaining to the bankruptcy court of appeal well if that's all i've got your honor i sure do merits so what we're dealing with is whether or not we've pled a forged instrument and there's a detailed state description of what happened there really isn't any dispute and we've had this sort of summary district court said that it wasn't it had to be the same motion but that's not what the rule says so you know i filed it because it was the same subject matter so there was no evidence presented concise statements conflicted and there doesn't seem to be in the record any real dispute that somebody took the pages of an expert executed notarized documents and switched them out without permission at least not from my client who was the one who signed the notarized document you know what you may have a problem and you can tell me that you don't but we don't have a time do you have a problem with time but you say ok the you a bad instrument cannot be cured by the passage of time that's the white rule it's consistent with other states that if you forge it you take a risk and that's why in a transaction like a land transfer people get title insurance they get title insurance from the title company who is the one who handles the documents they have the power to prevent what i think what the court is is referring to is something i'm referring to as the deed was properly you saying it's void have been issue and maybe it was i don't know maybe it was maybe it wasn't but let's assume it's been real property that would have been transferred four or five times in the eleven years a lot of real property is as you know then youth sume if you don't have a staffer for a problem you just come in regardless of how many times it's been transferred and say wait a minute  from the beginning it is forever and i think let's assume some of what i gather and say oh well ok let's let's not lose weight eleven years let's wait thirty and let it move it's real property does and then you could come in and say wait a minute you if you think that's not a problem go ahead with whatever you want to say but i'm bringing to your attention the fact that that might pose a problem for you yes your hon i guess part of it would be what how you discovered it and what you did when you discovered it those would be the things you'd start to look at and whether or not somebody had a duty to tell you they did it and that's also pled and it was also part of the summary judgment motions of a public record  be somehow but that is the presumption when you file the presumption these is the world isn't that so it is a presumption but like most presumptions it's rebuttable your honor and it's  it and that's you know for the the typical transaction in the development to have people standing around at the bureau conventions we're very good recording system here you can look at any deed in the state of hawaii it's sitting over there you can look it up  see most of the on line the question is this thing went on for litigation for a long time and i came into the case late not trying to make an excuse but i came in late and preparing for the case we discovered that there were two different deeds in the case now that happened in one thousand in two thousand and thirteen i don't think anybody disputes that you know a lot they can speak to it but that's when it happened and this case is only few years late later than that so in terms of the concept of latches or anything else with you sat on your rights this thing was brought up right away it was raised in the state court state courts i brought it up in a motion court said it's not relevant to this motion in limine the i'm not looking at and that's why i came to the district court i came over here to litigate it i would argue your honor in a case in a state that says where devenish you know you can come back a hundred years later i think that's what you have to get yes hundred years later and no matter how many times it's strange change than what is happened you can come back and say well wait just a minute my great grandfather on this and i only yes that's what i think i believe that to be the actual law your honor yes right room with it well that's why we have title insurance your honor and that's why one of the defendants is a title company because when we do these transactions and this is this is part of the world that almost brought the entire world economy to an end sloppy handling of real property transactions mortgages everything almost stop every  t m machine on planet earth almost stopped because we have a sloppy business practice in the united states that infected the world this is the tail end of that this was not the way you do it but it says we can correct it but they tell you about it and so if they forgot you know a page fell out or something like that you've had the original documents since this case how will say i've seen that appear in a close and it's because it is l lucky for my client and i spotted it lucky for him because no one else had spotted it and this case had been going on for seven years or something and no one noticed it and the documents that we got this from were ones that were provided by the defendants you know it's in it's in my papers it was the disk that they gave us i don't want to go outside the record but this was not between that catch somebody and something it was clear that somebody change an easement and a grant that was in it that's a significant change in the documents and if you want to stop that your honor and i think anyone would particularly people in our in our profession you do it by making somebody pay for you want to do this case ok i have one question about timeliness the district judge said the time started at diversity i agree with you that we do not know who the citizens are of the l l c the members of the l l c so i agree with you that we do not know whether this court has jurisdiction  we always like to know if we have jurisdiction for we take the time to write opinions and preferably we even do it for we have to read the briefs so what we have now is we just don't know based upon this record ok now the counsel indicated that he finds jurisdiction because there's a bankruptcy involvement what your response to that i believe may be accurate that there is a bankruptcy involvement however i'm not i do not agree with him regarding k p l k p l's involvement with the bankruptcy he refers to james lowe and that james lowe w somehow connected to this property but he has not drawn the connection between james lowe remnant three and this lawsuit regarding the alleged forged well if we're still at sea on this when we get together we may i be asking you to do some additional research you and your co car council ok thank you let's get straight recorded eleven years eleven years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit we had nine years of state court litigation to bench trials one final judgment in the state court one judgment on appeal what we have here is hancock's belated attempt to unwind nearly a decade worth of litigation during that time saw kids graduate from high school one graduate from college i have another one who is getting ready and deeply rooted in getting ready to go to college i have p t s d we have been dealing with this deed for far too long he is test driving courts he test drove this issue in front of judge for once you know in the fifth circuit he raised the identical argument in summary judgment he raised the identical argument in motion in women e it was did not i by his own admission he came here to this court because he didn't seek or he did not obtain the rulings he wanted and that's true in almost every appellant that we see but the thing that bothers me is that the court  below said that all of these cases are out of fraud and therefore the district judge decided that we would just look at fraud in order to determine whether the statute of limitations is r i have a problem with that because clearly they weren't there several of the statute of the cases that were were simply not fraud the injunction trespass e all of those are part of the same statute limitation so to the extent that the district judge made a mistake on that do we have to remember so you can have another opportunity to on this case  is critical to how the case is going to be handled and decides they're all fraudulent then we look at the case and we say clearly some of these are not fraud cases and and they then what we do with  main don't we have to send it back for the judge to take another look and see which are in fact fraud cases and which aren't and then make an appropriate determination based upon that finding well it appears that this complaint hancock's complaint the underlying premise is fraud or forgery which is the underpinnings for his victualled and trespass that's what he says but when you have injunction trespas of the deed i would say that that's barred by the statue of limitations when you think how is that it's an equitable claim there's no statute of limitations no statute limitations on so he could come in here as your honor referred to one hundred years from now to cancel the deed i would suggest that they meet him and he may not last more than fifteen minutes with it but i would suggest that under the circumstances of this case  case he voluntarily conveyed the property he intended to do so he would wanted to sell the property to k p he dealt with the property a year later by entering into a settlement agreement with mr graham because because of this purported easement he was dealing with this property and the conveyance of this property and you or should have known at least at the recording of the deed and no later than the settlement agreement of the contents of that trustees deed he knew in two thousand and three when he entered into the settlement agreement with grampus that there was no such easement otherwise it would have been no reason to enter into the settlement agreement with mr grampus so under the specific facts of this case it was wholly appropriate to apply the six year statue of limitations very appropriate particularly given that he was continuing to deal with i agree with you judge so what do we do about the others  affirmed the decision because the this the basis for those claims relates to the fraudulent or forged so that would get you through most of them but it wouldn't for a motion for cancellation petition for cancellation would we do with your honor i didn't see and i apologize i didn't see that his complaint included the claim for attempt to unwind years of state court litigation and in the district courts words a naked attempt to resurrect time barred claims if i could your honor i'd like judge will also like to address your first issue jurisdictional issue please a s a threshold matter i would agree with your analysis on the l l c issue that you would look to the domicile of the members of the l l c as being determinative of whether or not diversity jurisdiction exists i'll concede your honor did however to the extent that mr hogan did raise the issue we had broached both at the district court level and then as well up here in our app help we brief this issue of the related to bankruptcy jurisdiction and i'll concede  many years ago we had looked at that issue it was never fully briefed but i'm not certain i would agree with mr hogan that you know that's a slam dunk issue and that's been resolved if there's a some part of this case involved with with what we can consider bankruptcy jurisdiction i'm sorry i mean is there some part of this case that we can actually look at and say this is part of the bankruptcy jurisdiction as i recall our analysis around of the answer would be no that there really isn't that there is no quote unquote related maybe the case can be saved without the diversity jurisdiction issue but we'll have to get into that but i had i just i didn't understand how the bankruptcy jurisdiction applied to this case we don't believe it does your honor i think it's can be a problem your honors if i may turn more towards the merits your honor the district court spent a lot of time going through this issue of whether you know whether the claims sound in fraud whether or not fraudulent concealment would apply  simple fact of the matter is we need to look to hancock's complaint and his complaint does not state a viable claim for relief against fidelity national title search three quote unquote claims for relief declarator requesting in his demand for relief on the declaratory judgment claim he's requesting a declaration that the subject trustee be declared void your honors but only national title is not a party to that deed whether or not that deed was upheld or declared void we would frankly have no horse in that race so i don't think to the extent that there is this claim so to speak for declaratory relief that necessarily implicates fidelity's interests with respect to the  relief claim that mr hancock has set up i would know your honor there's absolutely no facts in the body of that claim no allegations that tie to fidelity get off that elegies left silence mr han allegation is that cool on a partners has been out in the world uttering this deed setting aside the fact that we don't believe there's any civil cause of action for quote unquote uttering on the injunctive relief side he's alleged no facts of these of the national title i will concede in his demand for relief he adds in when he's addressing his injunctive relief claim he adds in the initials f and t your honor i'd respectfully submit at that point with there being no substantive allegations regarding fidelity on that claim that at that point in time when he gets down to his demand for at least simply adding in our initials is really nothing more than adorning the pleadings at that point time presumably there's a fight you could in theory have a civil claim for trespassing judgment be in the attendant remedy to that claim but the fact of the matter is he's never alleged and it's the pfizer logic that would be in possession of this property which is kind of the same kuantan of a trespass claim and absent any allegation which there isn't that we're not in possession of property i don't see how he has any type of very basic threshold level the complaint fails to articulate an actionable claim for relief as against that l t and i see your honour's my time is running short if the court like me i can touch on the other stuff i believe in it well if you think this case took a long time wait till you send it back because when we find out who was in the l l c i think we're going to find out it was the debtor james lowe who was in the l l c you notice they don't even know who's in it and he was the one and and i would ask this rhetorical how long do you think litigation will go in the bernie made off case this was our bernie madoff and the person who i think was in the may have one problem we look at the pleadings understood your honor as far as the claims against fidelity so i did i didn't just put mr lowe in there because i just picked him out of a crowd he was the one who put this deal together and there is these little pieces of it that show that looked like he was taking a piece so he may have been in the l l c but i will say that once we know of was one in georgia and i believe one in arizona that's what's going to come out of it the other damages against them on paragraph thirty of the complaint i'm sorry i'm thirty five including punitive damages and i don't again ask for it in the prayer now this is the first complaint i've never case i'm up with a lot of things that i'm not going to be substantially let me turn to decide but at this point your honor everything in this is supposed to be viewed as true and that's the standard