really simple united marketing solution wants to receive two hundred thousand dollars on one hundred thousand dollars judgment and that's not a quibble and as a result the district court abused its discretion when it denied the followers rule sixty five and six re which sixty be relief was not granted varial correct your honor it does require unusual circumstances which is what we have here specifically both under five but also under the followers then negotiated with three to purchase a portion of the judgment reese had against united it's what you say the greenman to the way it was phrase was because at the time the parties were laboring under a mistake of fact that the fairfax court had actually issued the garnishment at the time but in construing the contract you have to look both at the ten and the words used the contract specifically said that the credit the release credit which is what the district court called it was being purchased for ten thousand dollars to satisfy the fouler judgments one of the ages by people people into factor agreements all the time isn't a garnishment or something you're sort of summing that i perked up by responding to a garnishment which is just an attachment of an asset that you can somehow cut out the debtor in legitimate amount and apparently is it final judgment then when that's attached i think you have to pay that into court isn't that the process and then the court then awards it but it may not go to release it may go to release if there's been a recent tach that attached the judgement but then it goes into court and at least united has to have some say in this if you are the reason why i don't believe that is accurate in this particular case at the time which was why didn't they just buy this judgment mind out of change the legal standing but i think for your argument to be that it we bought part of this judgement doesn't i don't find support for that in the plain language of this contract they did set it out as a purchase of simon because at the time they had the mistaken belief that the purpose of court actually issued the garnishment and as part of resolving the garnishment they bought that release credit that specifically under the terms of the agreement they were then using to satisfy the judgment research basically so you know your clients were involved in being mistaken in what they were doing in the way they were to their contract correct they were there and then your clients who made a mistake they are then they decided to take a chance on the wording of that be insufficient to put them visitation they want to be in and they may have made a mistake in that because they didn't actually because under the sixty six factor what the by failing to grant them relief from the judgments they allowed united to suffer to obtain a windfall to the detriment of the fowlers and that's put united in the position of being able to  think sort of you know this is very minute with their torn around united who had an interest in all this the united had a judgment against you which it could be satisfied and you somehow wanted to get rid of that judgment by giving ten thousand dollars to some third person and having them reduced the judge their judgment but that doesn't do anything to your judgment and they didn't agree to it they have paid on the judgment against you and all ree has a right to is to attach the proceeds but reese could not have gotten that judgment out it seems to me in order for reese to get what you owed united they would have to go to united two points to that in our respect the absolute right to do whatever it wanted with it's judgment against united and they're going to be stuck you know something they're going to be stuck they had a claim for two hundred twenty thousand a waterboard is and now it's down to hundred sixty or whatever the amount is all they are they are they end happy is reason happy now ok now they're stuck with it but that doesn't mean you can't read your judgment but what happened between reese and the followers is no different than any of the other credit purchasing in depth purchasing that goes that transaction so reece malcolm has to collect less and you paid ten thousand dollars for that but you still owe united your judgment and your judgment is how much honored but after the ten thousand credit the district court gave it about ninety six thousand dollars and the six thousand dollars why don't you still owe that because again they go back under the unjust enrichment there is no requirement personal i just hold it unjust enrichment you're talking about you gave but they didn't have to i did or they own it but i'll have to agree when citibank sells my credit card at the berkeley it's no different exactly it's not your debt the debt the they own the debt they own the judgement against you and they didn't give it up reese gave up all that money for ten thousand and i'm not sure i would have even given you a ten thousand dollar credit because it seems to me i think it's acceptable but i thought it seems to me that you're still owe one hundred six dollars to united satisfaction to the extent of whatever you guys agreed but that doesn't affect the judgment that united has against you it does because they milling lee excepted the benefit of that agreement which put them in an unjust enrichment situation i mean got ten thousand one hundred thousand dollars worth of benefit for ninety thousand dollars well why not your client just as unjustly enriched as you claim united because the benefit to united was the same one that we paid one dollar ten dollars ten thousand dollars half a million dollars for the crime but i'm asking why no i'm asking why you were on unjustly enriched to ninety thousand dollars because of your theory you get one hundred thousand dollars worth of benefit for ten thousand dollars right correct and that is the same exact situation that better but they may have negotiated but the net result why isn't that an unjust enrichment to them because there is nothing in the law or in equity that allows a creditor who has taken the assignment of someone else's debt or obtain a credit on that that to be limited to what they paid for that  not have given it to them at this point maybe because of any number of factors i feel this is a never try i feel to see how you link up the negotiations you have and you have a right to buy the rhesus judgment just like you're saying but that has no connection the fact that united was benefited in that transaction you had with reese has no relationship to the judgment independent judgment they have on a different debt against you and the only way you can get rid of that judgment is to have that satisfied some way with an agreement with united but you were under that example then at no point would any debtor ever be able to buy a debt of their creditor  that still doesn't get rid of their judgment against you but it was satisfied because they were offset against the other judgment why because not one x zero is why we offset it's just a matter of black letter law it's so if if we if you take it that we bought that one hundred eleven thousand dollars and we you know i did one hundred six proximate the time well let me ask you this hypothetical in this circumstance if united had a claim on the court with respect to the restructuring and they wanted to assert it at some point in time when it's collected that there was a real fraud it was all manufactured that still leaves the judgment they have against you open and they want to collect it you can't force them to collapse those two judgments and say that because you paid off some third party without their knowledge they now have to take that credit but they didn't have to do is our position because the nature of that transaction was a can to say on the timing of that debt that you didn't buy that that actually you just you just satisfy it to do a limited amount somebody have balt the reste judgment against you and then try to use that to satisfy a dead they owed you well i think your honor that era do that they'd have to bring it before the court and  of have bought this judgments that of whatever you all did in this agreement how does that affect the garnishment or does it doesn't affect the garnishment in the garnishment setting we are entitled as the judgement debtor to be a part of any sort of transaction i think the harkins case speaks to this which is the judgment creditor and i and the garnishee do not step into the shoes of the judgment debtor and in that case and not a lot of the situation her role as a judgment creditor in another matter is not affected it's a limited proceeding in which the only issue at hand is whether or not the attached asset a follow on what i question that judge said was ask have a court action you just have to judgments somebody buys a judgment can a person having a judgment against them and having a judgement in his favor apply a set off at law or would he have to go to court to have  your honor in that case i believe there may be a maybe the procedure is filing for an injunction jumped of relief of some kind but i believe they would have to go to court in that situation and in this case your honor i think the point is that the judgment was not purchased if there was a release credit but the point is but we do have a court case that's what's in front of us as a court case so court is involved yes you're an absolute so now but you  win because of the wording of the agreement between the fowlers and raced or do you went on some principle wall that would that would attain even if they had properly worded they are grima to by the debt some fashion against your what they owe you because in this procedure you're on it that's not what's before the court on the garnishment in that case your honor no matter what the greenman said no one was allowed to step into the shoes of our of but in a garnishment proceeding can somebody can so i don't know who the garnishee is and all that but the person that owes money cannot say but you're our wish should not hold them because we have in essence already paid them a hundred thousand dollars they get to say that us somewhere somehow don't but your honor i think they could say that somewhere but what they say it the court that when the court moved to know i'm saskin would the court want to know i'm not going to endors proceedings or any way in order to make these people pay a second hundred thousand dollars if in fact legally they have already paid one hundred thousand dollars you tell me while we walk can't we look at that issue because why well i think you can't look at that issue in the in the it look at it because i think you can't cannot look at the garnishment situation specifically because the the issue before the court on the garnishment is whether the assets attach to that particular debt garnishment proceeding is merely an attachment of assets it's not an assessment of liability yesterday right yes and so when the judgment that or as assets in the hands of third persons you can attach those assets and bring them to court and there's not an one five zero one that there are options and that is pay the money to the court file an answer stating what you owe or the coming showing up on the day of the return to state what you owe none of that occurred here so the garnishee and the judgment creditor went outside of the procedure and did what is not allowed by the virginia code plainly and that is why the agreement whatever it is they did was right out of that was not allowed by the other because garnish the government proceeding gives the garnishee a very limited directive so why can't they do what they did what they did was selling or just didn't have any effect it has no effect on it's not a legal they can they can when you said they c her whatever they like doesn't mean the contract has teeth they don't even plead the contract in their papers they just talked about a garnishment that's right i'm looking at their memorandum here it's just the whole garnishment proceeding they're claiming that they have a right had in fact we have no idea that the ten thousand dollars was even paid except for the representation thing by counsel that you and the other side did this they took a risk on buying that debt like they did from race they can do that they wanted to and whatever it means in  but it not to be used in this procedure and they didn't properly put what they attempted to do and what credit they should get for that in front of the court that's correct and i think that applies equally for both sixty five and sixty under sixty six we have an equitable proceed and well it doesn't it looks an entire picture but it's looking that only the case of united versus follow yes your own there's a judgment there yes or no and there's that judgment as the proceeds of the judgment which followers money owed to united has been attached according to fall it was attached by reese and a garnishment the what they attach united which is the debtor that's my point is that they did not is there information in this record while reach would take a phallus ten thousand dollars to satisfy hundred thousand dollars and not your ten thousand there's no information on that on the record on that your honor and frankly i don't know and i can't speculate as to why reece would even take this deal in the first place why why they were excited inspect there were no assets lying around and valorous as i don't have any more here you can have it ten thousand dollars not only to get out of the garnishment and not have to fork over more than ten grand through the garnishment action through proper action but also to get out of the judgment to which you know another hundred six thousand dollar judgment entirely so in essence they the more you are i guess just briefly i'd say austin richmond the elements simply weren't met as well the elements of work proven in lower court the elements of interest in richmond being a benefit knowledge of the benefit and and importantly a reasonable expectation of payment even the equities of the situation i think in this case none of those elements have been reese is the want to conferring a benefit here not the feller's we had no knowledge of the benefit when it was conferred we we were simply not a why why was the ten thousand redacted from it the essentially their own one i sent into the court the first time we sent the contract to united back in early november sorry men november we struck the numbers  because i don't want to fight with them as to that we only she get ten thousand dollars credit when i provided to them in december i provided it with the numbers and when we were making copies to submit the engine warms closer to them because what they might upset the apple or they didn't want it because frankly it wasn't we didn't believe it was any of their business how much we had paid for their judgment probably whoever bought too far when we provided it to them on december first we provided them with the numbers in it and we there's never been a divide between on the record the only place i saw it as you guys agre before the district court correct and that's because i when i made the copies i put simply because you were concerned that they knew what you actually paid for they would have an argument that you were entitled to what you were playing me now because i thought it was irrelevant to what we were claiming because of the benefit was the four hundred eleven they happen to be the judgment creditor and your dad and you didn't want to tell them what you actually paid on that judgment again i thought it was irrelevant and it goes back to a well it's a addictive case and the bankruptcy court the enron hooper the court there found that whether again it was a tense and on the dollar sell it didn't matter that it was a ten cents on the dollar so you know i i just want to express a concern i have i thought that this case very close to mis representing things to the court i believe that there was disclosures to the court that four hundred twenty one thousand was paid satisfaction that the ten thousand dollar agreement was blanked out so known would know what united was not incorporated in this even though it was their asset that was being attached their asset was the judgment that you owed to  united it was being attached that was never disclosed to the court that there was a confession of assets the amount of money wasn't put into court it was all pretty clever and maybe way too clever i i don't know i just wanted you to understand that i had that i was troubled by that with respect to really reese's release which is the one that said they were paid one hundred eleven thousand we obviously had no input on not as to i think i thought that's what you required them to do i didn't say we didn't say to to represent any court they got a one hundred eleven thousand dollars his that we had only gotten ten they leased the hundred eleven which is what they were supposed to do well you put that together where they say they were paid one hundred eleven and then you have your contract which has been acted to scoot the tent up and you have no confirmation or information presented to the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor united united its judgment debtor with respect to race and a judgment creditor with respect to you and they are the center of all this and you're sort of going around them and trying to tell them and richen them in a fashion that enriches you without time and telling the court that's a big thing because there was an attachment which the garnishment ultimately was dismissed with new order him as well but even with mr garnish that was part of your deal with them right they no we didn't specify that they had to dismiss it without having the order of payment entered