you want to join us up here exactly one of the sayings that the judge wrote in to the opinion i thought was in essence look i'm giving this rental alternative remedy but if they don't pay if they're not current you come back consolidating now and my correct understanding that they haven't done the things you're supposed to be doing then you know the question that immediately hit event is why are you here arguing over the legal principles when in the district court if you have an immediate remedy that takes you right what you want because a district court said in essence come to me if they're not doing what they're supposed to do and you can  it's not when you say you've had to reboot you're saying that you didn't think it was within your power to go back and say your honor based on the things the court itself indicated in the opinion we're we're reinstitute we want to to have you look at foreclosure in other words even if it meant you had to file another against it too and i'm not sure you would have something you could have approached this record about and asked this record about why why isn't that given the course statement that you it was without prejudice and what i read to be a pretty strong indication that if they failed in their obligations you were going to have an opportunity why didn't you why did she go back i'll get that so so the answer is you kind of think that the new jersey's off the reservation  well ok in copy but let's look at the rogers test is it your position that valuation i mean determination of how the proceeds would be split if you will that that is necessary as part of that rogers consideration of the rogers factors  and fee interest and it's your view that survivor interest life estate that was just type of interest life expectancy those things need to be considered or not your position is to intended by the entirety strictly fifty fifty ok well you've just answered the question right you do have to take account of life expectancy you can't just default to fifty fifty because you could have hugh heffner you know the bunny number eighty seven with a sixty five year gap and a real serious difference your position is account for it unless there's a big gap and then ignore it no no actuarial table to figure those things out there but misunderstood the case or as the government changes its mind what's going on nothing to do with whether kraft clarified that you could attach directly based on a federal law does it value of the interest of the property holders have and that doesn't make any difference here it should shouldn't whether that regime that you're operating on while you're making the valuation is bankruptcy or some other umbrella of the lot right  and yes that's what the interests of the parties are and yes i get put a value on it hopefully with some level of expertise and rationality i'm still not understand that if you've got a rationale i'd like to hear it with a method of valuation which seemed fair and sensible and parts you said use a joint actuarial table i take it that your argument there was it's got everything baked into it that actuarial table has the math in it it will help you understand what the values are use that that's a safe figure approach here you're saying don't do that fifty fifty came up you can't have a chance to just talk about other stuff so that's all you want to it's ok by me an separate but equal joint property and it's being taken if it's taken by for sale so that's the difficulty that we're kind of talk around with trying to grapple with if you can come up with one a reason in the law why the district court could that doesn't say that you can ignore the rights of one of the party one of the co tenants as you're as you're evaluating the value of the interests of the parties it just seems to me that the maybe maybe there's not a good answer to that we should be asking you something different let me let me ask the question the first factor the first rogers factor just judged the mental use the eighty six fourteen numbers in considering the first factor i read the first factor differently i read the first factor as saying you look and this is all for the rajah's test has to do with the interests of third parties it's not simply husband or wife it can be you know six people on a piece of property and the first factor says you look at that in the interest of the one and you say partial say with partial sale be prejudicial or in terms of is that possible here it seems to me partial sale would be prejudicial because nobody's going to buy mr card assays half interest in this property and live with mrs hardesty it's just not happening whereas in another situation where there are six people who want a piece of property and they're all investors and one of them is delinquent well you know somebody may buy one fifth one six interest in that piece of real property you know as an investment isn't wrote value ok that makes a huge difference we've got four factors if you're if you're kind of rigging two of them by versus the valuation that's going to be it's going to impact is it not at all about valuing the property and dividing it if you were selling it all together that's a different factor different analysis but he sort of batted the first factor right yes ok so if he so since the remedy that was ultimately given was an exercise or is it how could we get behind that and i hold it maybe there's a way but can you explain  erroneous we've all agreed i guess what i'm asking is in exercising equity it's got to be based on an appropriate legal foundation if you missteps can we still well it was a or spouse has the same survivorship rates the same life estate rights as us rights and the same actuarial life expectancy if all those things are the assume for the sake of discussion that we thought actuarial data mattered right and that we thought that plants made sense when it said use a joint actuar future values and then discount it to present values or is that kind of operation somehow when you're talking about the percentages of the property  kind of valuation of life for states survivorship rights and it may have to discount that the present value but once it comes to an overall valuation if it uses the joint actuarial table all of those is at that point it's math you take those tables and you figure out what the relative interests are you multiply if i understood that  right but that's supposed to be extreme or not so wouldn't the drill be that we send it back to church the middle saying do it do it over