your honor that it meets california's criteria for setting it aside not just once but several times the sale must be set aside in this case for three main reasons all of which are part of the criteria for california to test first b purchased the property for an inadequate price at the foreclosure sale but by bad she had purchased the property for an inadequate price grossly inadequate price piece that is that your main argument well no no your honor go back to status as a b s p or a legit b s p doesn't actually impact our argument for two reasons a person is not a b s p if that person knows ahead of time that there are potential problems with the sale and that makes sense because california's b s p laws are trying to protect innocent purchasers fro mr williams that they would in fact be a loss to you after the sale that was conversation number one conversation number two the day prior to the sale do you not as other attorney also spoke with mr williams and said that there were no it's not just the fact that there were these conversations and also shows in the record on pages one sixteen when eighteen one twenty three in one thirty five to thirty seven that mr barak last year he or his attorney received a scale that attack is based on a defective notice of default or defective publication or something of the notice that's not what we're alleging here units we are not contesting that the notice of default list serves incorrectly we are not saying that the notice of sale was somehow incorrect or not published in the right way but we are seeing is that california standards for setting aside for closure sale have been met for example your honour's there was depending on which conditions were met and in this case the conditions for the ten million dollar valuation have been met one of those conditions the first condition your honor is that there be a mobile home park resting on the property which the is the court found on page twenty of the records that are by operated a mobile home park on the property and it's still there the second condition your honour's for the ten million dollars valuation is that there not be any lease encumbering the property the the issue your honor and with respect to whether the purchase price is the six hundred ninety thousand dollars in cashier's checks at the sale or that amount plus some other amount there's no finding in the record for closure sales due to inadequate purchase price they only look at the amount expended second even if but how can you just look at the amount expended and not even look at the value of the property there's nothing to compare it to if you just look at the amount valuation which is in fact a correct valuation because there is a mobile home park on the property and there is no longer a lease and covering the property that still only eleven percent loan we don't agree that  scenario the amount he expended assuming it was six hundred ninety thousand dollars then he spent thirty four percent of the property's value and in the case think of still the court found a quote unquote gross inadequacy when that purchase price was thirty two point five percent of the property's value so even in that case it still needs the criteria in terms of the irregularities there were several irregularities in still she that resigned your honor that question in this case isn't so much the question is not whether or joy had actual or apparent authority that's not his problem your honor but it does indicate age and irregularity this is not the scrupulous regularity that the courts require it's not the case that during the normal course of foreclosure sales borrowers receive a six hour  behind the requirement that postponements be announced at the time at the sale is to alert the public to the fact that it will be taking place in a different time in a different location and the trial court in this case found that the foreclosure  continue the sale simply by leaving a recorded message on its answering machine the friday before hand which is not what's required by section twenty nine twenty four g your honor in several cases systems investment actually found on page thirty in the record that in some moral sense they have taken advantage of g n r and there was a lot of back and forth at the trial court level as to whether mr buyback she had ever received an appropriate fine that totally is i there was still unfairness with respect to the scale mister but you had an interest in the property because he having leasehold interest in it there was a fifty year lease he conversations your honor he had instructed his attorney six weeks prior to the foreclosure sale well he was having all these various conversations he admitted that himself in his own testimony at trial so you know it's in addition to these additional citations that i stand up this past week  yes that's all right then i would like to begin by sharing that we grow too soon old and too late smart and that in preparing for this proceeding this morning i felt that i i'd like to take a moment and refine the focus of of the barber watches brief on standard of review because i think that this entire case really rests on standard of review and with that in mind i will say the the procedural irregularities become the focus or the fulcrum on which this case rests because if there if the trial court and the district court were correct in their assessment of the impact of these procedural irregularities procedural irregularities there are three and they must be directed or addressed independently in our brief what we have said is that the district court applied the appropriate standard which is what this court review is named overall conclusions of law and on factual findings the standard is clear air i believe that that's still true but what i failed to do and i want to kind correct at this point is to nuance those that standard with the basic three procedural irregularities that are alleged so if i may the first is that the agreed to postpone that is the one that was done by stipulation was that was not followed in fact in the in the sense that the postpone novo because the trial court decided that issue on partial summary judgment against the appellant and did so on the basis that appellant failed to avail himself of the opportunity to develop a triable issue of material fact that's why i believe that standard is you know overall because the court is reviewing a a summary judgment procedure on the summary judgment the issues are only of law because they're supposed to be no triable issue of fact if you're going to grant summary judgment so that's what we should submit on that issue employee of the trustee named marty sela san miguel who who testified at deposition basically what the normal standard would have been there is absolutely zero evidence as to what happened neither side because we didn't know ok but if the knowledge that that's evidence that the normal practice is to leave a recording the friday before that's the only nonmoving party right right there still wasn't you see on summary judgment there was no evidence at all so your argument is that because the buyer because the set because the  agreed on what was to happen and then again standard of review before the bankruptcy court on january twelfth and the reference to the record is the supplemental  excerpts from the record one twenty one two one thirty six that's the entire transcript of those proceedings and the transcript what it was transcribed and it is a trial exhibit two fourteen and what it does is established conclusively that as of january twelfth ninety five janata had actual notice that the trustee intended to conduct the proposed postponed sale on the morning o three specific citations page one twenty two lines five to twenty page four act one twenty two lines five to twenty normal because that's an issue of law and the problem here in the appellants case is that on this issue of both the postponement they have never been able to establish that if there were an irregularity it was material because they've not connected causal way any actual prejudice with this of with the alleged irregularities what about within the office of the trustee with any authority actual or apparent did anything anything period that what this gentleman in the office who happened to be a subtenant did it's the fact that this gentleman was in the office and did it you know and engaged in conversation with them at all is curious i can't imagine what he thought he was doing but i can't tell you any more than that it is curious now the file disappearing the only evidence that might vary on that is the fact that th lady di enjoy had sold the business and you know apparently lucia called her and said something and then said something to mr  but the only explanation that i can suggest but again i'm i'm i'm speculating and trying to answer your question there's no indication one way or another of why that happened and rather obscure formula for determining the rent i think it's best left i could take you through it but i don't think you want to waste the time but it had a rather obscure and have less than three minutes right so there was a disagreement between less or and less c or how that formula worked and to put it into a nutshell in the formula there was a cost of living adjustment built in and later on down the mathematical trail that cost of living adjustment was taken out now that's just a matter of plain simple algebra you can you can evaluate land by time you can evaluate land buy by quantum of title you can do a lot of things in this case you have a lease hold and you have the freehold or the rid of the least well you know over the lease was very advantageous to but you know you have to realize in  irregularities that's not the case the bankruptcy court made no finding whatsoever with respect to the standards to penn state this you know the district court did so finds that there were no irregularities however yawners the district court relied number one case for breach of contract when it came to that conclusion and this is an equitable case instead of the ready case doesn't doesn't have any impact here and also the court improperly relied on section eleven for the continuance from didn't and therefore there were perhaps less bidders and there are cases in california that specifically state the whole purpose of these requirements is to give the general public as much notice as required rights fair sale and competitive but how can you rely on an irregularity that you knew about it would appear to mean that at that point you should say well the public doesn't have notice of this and so this is an irregularity that needs to be corrected rather than going along with it and