issue appeal to the applicability of the statute of limitations under the uniform probably transfer act and i'd like to sharpen my statement of the issue to confine it to the facts of this case and the argument that we are making here is that an appeal filed by a judgment  from a judgment based on a prior obligation does not told the statute of limitations under the uniform fraudulent transfer act  the argument and the first argument under that issue is the statute itself and without rehashing the various provisions in the o which later were tracked tact is for argument she took an appeal from the motion for summary judgment which was not finalized until november thirtieth of one nine hundred ninety eight four years is told until you get the final answer you don't think that applies in a contract or fraudulent transfer case i don't think it applies i don't think contractor tour has anything to do with i think it has to do with whether or proposition well to take a look at the cortez case the court first case says that there is a final judgment that establishes quote an actual legal of a debtor creditor relationship absent a court judgment cortez seems to be saying that in the ordinary transactional business there's not a lot of creditor relationship if that's the case then every time i make a credit card charge and it's not reduced to a judgment there's not a debtor creditor relationship and off legation is arises thereby for me that's that would be nonsense my credit card company would would agree likewise in the court has case there was not a prior creditor better relationship until in that case which was a tort case that so far as i'm concerned the signed the deeds of trust and the obligations to last year well you know that california case of adam now which basically runs the country in a contract case for getting the the judgment debtor transferred real property to her son and the action ensued to satisfy that transfer so that case was not based on tort or contract in fact from the record you can't tell what it is at the very end of that case the california supreme court did not set up the statute of limitations by their answer nor was it made an issue on the trial no evidence was received on the subject nor is it a matter mentioned in the findings here just in such a state of the record the subject will the holding in court tests to be have any support from any other comparable uniform transfer states or anything else that says you know i have to wait till a judgment you've got and go at some time before that if you think you have a sufficient relationship well in this case that wouldn't necessarily apply because there was one there was a summary judgment in one nine hundred ninety three the only thing over offsets under a settlement in the settlement conference so other than that i have i have no no idea what that was about back to my other question which i don't think you think answered what what is the support for your position clear logic here on her and the straight statement of the statutory provisions under the uniform transfer act that's stated in california of these cases you don't know where it lies in between and tort cases can lead here say you're if you're here a victory is can be almost assured you know say in a tort case of somebody came in and makes a lot of sense because as the court was first in some of the old california cases you're going to have a whole lot of litigation a lot of damage inflicted if you require project act before your judgment becomes final all of you can do that if you take the risk and i think that what i would argue about court piers is they have not applied the direct language of four years or one year or up to seven years i think you can apply the seven year what they've said is it's cumulative the remedy is an accumulative to the remedies available for the fraudulent conve really years of your statute runs in the last overt act and we've alleged acts of it until well i did in the complaint up until a few months ago actually but that's how a lot they got into name wasn't on the original properties that got transferred but we have alleged in our complaint a second of in the complaint in the bankruptcy court now that he and these other entities ar