ok judge i think we're going to go now all right i'll start the rd case we heard today is janice eight janet h fasi versus what's her polytechnic institute appeal number one  aside the question of whether massachusetts law or connecticut law applies i actually don't think that's a very important question  appears to me invalidate a transfer that decline can packet there right in the in the divorce decree and the massachusetts court in both instances said that the mere fact that the parties were married and the marriage itself does connecticut or control my question to you is whether we have a sufficient actual record that we can make an intelligent determination as to which war or control second  whether there's any need for such a determination because if if you are correct that well foot is inapplicable is there any material conflict determination as to which law or what part yeah let me let me let me give you some examples sir anything in the record about what communications transfers or those communications took place to you know for example what meetings there were what walk e mail traffic occurred anything of that sort concerning how these gifts came about ok do we do we know for example we have robert for if he was physically located at the time he made each of the disputed gifts now do we do we know for example we have but cranford property itself was located including the funds collected on the promissory notes that the husband had forsworn all right we don't know we have that money was sent from at least on this record according to anything massachusetts war or connecticut war right is the appropriate choice of war under the the most significant state approach that bad massachusetts in the forum state would would take for these questions i'm at the risk of making better from you want to happy what what i'm suggesting is that proven proof and fundamental fairness may very well would suggest right that the question of what moral applies what should be left until we have discovery and afore we develop record which in so far as i can find we don't have what your mr for easy and and and his alleged double dealing with his with his now former wife it's clear that all of that was centered in connecticut but that's not that's not the same thing i think i'm the most significant contacts i malice or all right if if if we simply take you up to your view of it remained and it seems to me your analysis would work to ask us to put two such as that to one side and i don't see how that fits in with the application of our eve of the restatement of the massachusetts conflict of walk s something that needs to be decided at this stage of the litigation or is it somewhat premature because we don't know that there's any liability at all on the front of the combat need for that to be resolved interest in giving credit to the interest of the state real property was transferred and i took under it but kept here so another reason to be wary of taking too hard a line about nonprofit universal message to that seems to have a very strong concern about capping that does that reflect the fact perhaps that we should take more account of the interest of the state where the transfer is located given the unique attributes the transferee might have been how that could affect that state's interest given all the people that depend on transferee for education for jobs et why would we give some weight to the state interest where real property is located like the logic of doing so has something to do with how important real property is to a state being able to have some sense of this law or terminating what happens to real property and i just wonder whether the tap here isn't reflective of another possibility which is doesn't say massachusetts has a real interest in what happens to money that  behalf of oyster polytechnic institute w p i you know it's at its core case of course relates to donations that were made to a charitable organization educational institution that's a completely innocent bystander law provides a mechanism for extending personal disputes to an innocent bystander under certain circumstances got has limits and in the plain language of the statute it's limited to different than other cases we already have a final judgment in two thousand and eleven and there's no dispute that the plaintiffs were seized the twenty million dollars she was owed as a result of that my final judgment so logically she can have a right to payment when we have an established satisfy prior judgment on the books and that is never been destructed you know in two thousand and fifteen she sought to reopen that divorce judgment in two thousand and seventeen she  merits of the case as opposed to the question before us which is whether it was appropriate to dismiss this case on pleadings befor so i turned  iterations so the choice award determination of or effect this can you give me any help on that why that i we shouldn't apply that definition exactly the way the not the right is reduced to judgment it doesn't say that it has to be reduced to judgment or that it doesn't have to be reduced to judgment it may or may not be because it's a very fact specific analysis the statute is so broad because it could apply in a number of different statutes and based on a variety of different facts and the question is based on these facts here in the context of what we have a final judgment that no one disputes that judgment was satisfied logically how can someone have a right to payment under an established satisfied prior judgment that's never been disrupted and there's been two dollars cases now to try to reopen that divorce case and  mechanism to modify that judgment but today there's never been a right to payment that will kind of a conflict council with all due respect if you're going to if you're going to try to impose on us what you're doing a condition preceding to any of those people being creditors which the statute doesn't say but if you apply back quite period that statutory definition would be changed from a very work i'm reluctant to plunge into those waters you know where we're i think we're where talking around here in circles what we now move your over to the question of choice of law you were at the series of questions i asked to are robert ford he was physically at the time of at the time spool of the various transfers and all of those facts certainly it seems to me would ff claims in terms of the total amount of fan we know that one of those elements imette total is the vaduz trust which everyone is seems to assume is composed of securities i was not sure that's clear from the from the record but by there is no specific information about the remainder of the transfers as to whether those transfer is were in cash in securities in gold in real property or in good point we just we simply don't know and i know all those facts that that you was a prudent morea would like to have it your fingertips in advise in your client on the choice of what the likely choice of one determination would be in this case  will leave gaps in the in the record during your discovery and then if you find that it makes a difference that there were use of material conflict and it is probabl that that there may be let's put it this way there were at least maybe but if there is a material conflict make your choice award determination in an influence on our not by not by guessing at what what's i mean we have we have no way of knowing from this record what transpired between robert and w p i and and one would like to think that w p i use an innocent rd party but you can't point to anything in the record that's that's that says that it is and it would be nice to know what discussions were had it would be nice to know for example whether whether robert influence w p i as to what he was doing are those are all things where when i turn the page to look at the look for the answer that all i get right now  why shouldn't we get with this is is so cloudy a situation right why shouldn't we get over relevant facts on the table before we make the that's correct yes and that's that's the pledge which supposedly these transfers were meant to to phone at least in part that's what i mean when i say this is all been going it and i'm i'm i'm looking for for some reason that you can give me a question i ask your brother some wish you can give me as to why we shouldn't get all the facts rather than just decide this month on or next month that the district court was either a right to pick massachusetts law or that the district court was wrong and short of the connecticut and the only response that you know  opened she would then only have a contingency plan because it wouldn't be clear that she would be entitled to this my just because the judgment was ok but i think is your point that until she g we have a lot of the obligation to address our article three since i guess i'm now understand your argument as you put it the existence of that judgment being in place and you describe it as satisfied judge s that create an article three standing issue for us threatened to injury now and and that she has standing position and that you know ice as a district court pointed out there is a technical difference of whether the common law fraudulent conveyance cases claims were preempted but that it doesn't make a difference as to the actual result because whether you make reference to the steps to a cap on damages but i take it from your answer now although that's a potential conflict down the road there's no particular need for that to drive our choice to disclose a material fact in the negotiation of that jennifer was you would have a cause of action under that scenario that's exactly what happened here and the fact that they were married shouldn't moniba water so there's no question that she was a predator  of the honorable united states court of appeals has now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting