should this court envelop and hold an equitable remedy if it is going to allow the roast to boost her standing in priority above the pool of general unsecured creditors in the case that i realize that you're on the the in our opinion the concept of resulting trust is hinged upon it depends upon some sort of transfer and without that transfer occurring or being able to be identified it creates a whole host of ambiguity says to  period because there was really no incidence of anything really being conveyed or transferred there was an intention of the parties and in fact i think a reasonable argument can be made that the second time period was really no more than an extension of the underlying debt or credit agreement in the first time period if you look at the bankruptcy court had the opportunity to hear the live testimony of both  both of their depositions and found that the original agreement was a loan roast a loan garcia fifteen thousand so she could make the down payment on the purchase of the property it was understanding that rossa would be repaid either from the case or into the transaction garcia for whatever reason for lack of better word just walk away or abandon i don't have any other explanation and it really wasn't given any by the parties garcia then stepped in by her own admission to make sure that her sister did not lose the property we believe that part of her motivation was to reading the fifteen thousand down payment and protect the underlying agreement which was she had the right to purchase the property and she was acting that original agreement by entering into agreement with her sister that she will continue making the payments and at the end of the war take note title or something with then transfer at that time so it's hard if it really is a debt or credit relationship and the type of everyone is looking for an equitable remedy these are two very unsophisticated parties there with some sort of agreement related to how this property is going to be transposed but the equitable remedy that is fashion by this court is going to have a direct bearing on the instance she's done it in the property she claims a similar interest in a property of her father she holds real property but doesn't want any record interest and the whole purpose of the recording statutes and the race notice priority of liens given under california rossa started making all the payments she made all the mortgage payments she made all the insurance payments she paid everything of ownership by california law there is no imposition of a trust at a later date family dinner table but there's no there's no event there that for anybody else to recognized what's going on here and now all of a sudden we want to go back and rectify when mr garcia has offered to give her sister the title and her sister as declined to do the sort of the legal and the right thing here your honor if i could turn back the clock if i could educate the client and if i could somehow rectify that i wouldn't have done it but these are very unsophisticated people in their family members but i must say it's i'm controverted at the time of trial the parties testify without contradiction we had this agreement and it was an oral agreement that was fully performed by rosa so whether or not the deed was transferred whether or not they memorialized it in a written agreement whether or not they actually carried out the ultimate task really does not undo the resulting frosting it's based upon the agreement and the performance position on the part of gross that she then changed the entire arrangement garcia making the mortgage payments are still making any ownership payments at that point in time in february ninety six rosa would be here arguing about whether about whether miss rolls on this property or not whether that was part of the bankruptcy is dry the question i'm not sure i mean seems to me we have to have a consistent ru delivering it to or had it been rejected then we'd know what the answer is but that never took place the last act of garcia executing a delivery you haven't but we do have some evidence in the record some suggest in the record th trustee is virgin at this point and stick to your creditor general and because she had no agreement with regard to transfer of title at the ultimate completion of all her duties under that agreement the had there been one as you say as this date yes the statute of frauds says that all agreements with regard to transfer of interest and real property must be in writing however there is an exception an exception is where one side fully performs their obligation under that agreement so you can have an oral agreement for the transfer rosso in this case only performs her half statute of frauds not a part of the transfer imposed without garcia being the title holder if you agree with the trustee then basically the bankruptcy creditors are all  thank you in answer to the question where is the transfer council is accurate there was a transfer of money but a transfer of money is going to indicate in our view a debtor creditor relationship the our position that this is not the basis of it was all contract it's more towards an equitable mean theory and if she's entitled to any court of due equitable remedy it should be based on her contributions for the proper for the property supported by an equitable leaner you know in essence equitable  intent other than the payment of money there has been no change of position relative to this real property indicating any incidents of ownership in favor of residence that is the only factor that the parties will agree on anyway it indicates the