and as a part of that there was a power way city center project under development by his clients and eventually sold about a year later and it sold with a  substantial net to the clients themselves of three and a half million dollars out of that three and a half million dollars mout provest was supposed to pay i understand the question correctly basically what what we're arguing is that there has not been a hearing before the bankruptcy court with regards to the actual facts of mr lopez's action whether or not they rise to the level of an oven tensional misrepresentation and that is the gist of the plainest claim that that was the misrepresentation in that letter that caused them to lose the security and that's that's not the case here so i don't know if i answered your question correctly but you make  really what i'm talking about is is that there is a subsequent hearing there was the trial with regards to the wife lonnie travesty judge marcus looked at it and i read the the transcript from th trial it's fairly extensive and so on and the facts are basically the same that what supposedly happened what she did and supposedly mr lopez dead are  identical i think that judge mosses is the last time we've raised all this these issues and i rafe this the last time she gave extensive thought to what her what she ruled on  it was submitted and she prepared a series of points the most important most important point out of that is the fact that it wasn't the exchange of the residence as security for the promissory note to have all the personal assets pledged and so on for i think it was about a one point five five million dollar law that was that was owed but it was again the fact that a year later that travis d not pay as he promised and that's something that time lapse mr lopez was long gone but he didn't can have any in further involvement he didn't have any way of controlling we think the last and tyrell place which would be judgment about us yes and her fight like i said her find these were fairly extensive her findings take into consideration that year gap when the property was sold the power of city development was sold for forty million dollars i believe or something some incredible amount of money proceeding or having committed a fraud against their the reisa ex and the state court proceeding the jury found that fraud the trial judge in that case reaffirmed the jury's verdict in a case lonnie travis the wife not of matt travis in a bankruptcy proceeding if she found against the discharge the objection to discharge filed by the rise of x in that particular case what she found and if you read her decision is very clear she found that she was an innocent spouse that she didn't know what was going on in these particular situation and her ruling absolutely depended on her determination of intent did lonnie travis intent to defraud and she found she did not intend to defraud no where in that case was there any litigation or any discussion of stephen locus his intent when he wrote the letter the jury and the judge in the appeal all found were the important factors in determining that he was liable for damages and fraud and so in this particular situation they don't meet the standard for application of the last in time  have is you have to have a case upon which race to the top of can be applied we have since moved on with our analytical discussion is being claimed preclusion vs issue preclusion an issue preclusion situations you can't apply these factors that the party against whom collateral estoppel is being sought to be applied in the circumstances that party must have been found against them on the issue and there was no determination in the travesty decision that is stephen lopez in that situation is that the rights of acts were not out of an ability to collect their judgment they had a judgment against mr lopez that's inconsistent with the argument that she found that stephen lopez had no responsibility whatsoever in the circumstances and you further get down the line on this question in the wording the judgment makes is it says that the proximate cause of the injury was matthew pay proximate cause is not the same as only cause and california fraud is based on substantial cause was stephen lopez's conduct a substantial cause of the loss to the rise of ics the jury trial judge in the court of appeal all found that in that favor so these are not inconsistent statements in this particular situation that's not ever going to be a factor and what we have the circumstances to to have a conflation between whether he should have been found liable in the state court proceeding and try to move that over to the bankruptcy environment and because we're not retrying the question of fraud in bankruptcy case because we have all the elements of fraud are set out in the jury verdict and each of them or one by one judge let them who was the bankruptcy judge you heard th were actions done by mr lopez which caused them to lose their security i think that is the gist of the of the argument by the by the plaintiffs and the facts timeline and so believe that the judge is correct when she states that the real cost here is that not pain when he has three and a half million dollars in his pocket and he pays a large part of his other bills but doesn't pay this which mr lopez had no control over thank you very much  last case on the calendar