you're on our side my name's macro sense and i represent no hill in the bankruptcy trustee for shyla management services inc which is an idaho corporation i would like to reserve approximately two minutes of my time for rebuttal argument the  here's bankruptcy trustee is trying to avoid certain deeds of trust based on notary acknowledgements included in those deeds of trust it's a very state law specific issue idaho legislature has specific statutes requiring different notary acknowledgment forms depending on who it is that is doing the signing of the document in this case it's deeds of trust signed by corporations for the corporate notary form is what would  be required there are several i do hope cases that deal specifically with the statutes in these issues i think they can be split into two different categories the st couple of cases two cases i dos supreme notary acknowledgment and that's the personal that's the form that was used in that document the deficiency was they forgot to write the name of the person who actually signed the document the presumption of regularity is that personal acknowledgement form and that's why that's why i think there's two separate categories of idaho cases the st category the form that was required was the form that was used there was just simply something left out of that former or not filled into the for the separate category of cases there was a certain form required but a different form was used that is the jordan case and the salad a case from two thousand and seventeen but what about the river green  distinguishable from the idaho cases because that the idaho cases where the wrong form was used very clearly say you cannot reform a completely wrong for big river green did that maybe i'm not asking my question very clearly and probably not so forgive me but my question is how do you distinguish this case from big river grain i think in this case you've got idaho cases that came after big river gr conundrum we do not have the authority and the three judge panel to overrule a prior case and of the th circuit now from time to time of course th circuit has to interpret state law correct and one might actually come to the conclusion that big river was an incorrect interpretation for all the reasons that you're talking about and then after big river there are additional cases but they don't really change idaho law so unless unless somehow big river doesn't govern here we're stuck with it so the real question for both council is the discontinuing vitality of big river which we can't change its interpretation difference between that case and this case now is the key well one of the differences elise is the subsequent idaho cases that that clarified  form i think in big river that the court decided that the correct form was used but they said they don't have the exact citation here but they they didn't even address the issue of hey we're using a corporate clarified or changed or then that would give us grounds i think arguably to two to reach a different result than big river green but i actually think and i want you to correct me what am i missing seems to me that idaho has been entirely consistent been entirely consistent there was a case after big river green a year later the new concepts realty case it was a nash to address big river dream in that case and again new concepts realty was  personal involvement for him that was required and a personal form that was you know in that case though the thing that allowed different result is that there is affidavit by notaries saying look i know these people personally and that was deemed suggestions that seems to me to be an off we the difference between the two forms for the notary acknowledgement a very technical difference and i think idea has been consistent and using the wrong form means you you you you're out it's not a properly recorded document  i guess where i'm struggling is if they've been consistent and the big river case came down after was clear and consistent and how can this panel overrule the greer i think the incorrect notary form was used then it couldn't be reformed the assumption big river i think was the correct model reform had been used and therefore could be reformed i don't know that there's a specific statement in big river acknowledging that but they don't even discuss the wrong form being used because it does identify him as president of big river corporation you want to save your time i do want to reserve the rest of my time i think knowledge of the facts of our case but basically it turns on whether deeds of trust that are recorded in the state of idaho should be voided and thrown out as of giving no constructive noticed was trustee to exercise its avoidance powers as trustee under section five hundred and forty four dollars of the bankruptcy code essentially throwing out millions of dollars in secured transactions which in my client's cases are their retirement savings so to address the statute what we're talking about is code section fifty five thousand seven hundred and eleven and it talks about what is the proper form for corporate acknowledgment and essentially our case law says that there are two legs to that acknowledgment it basically says that you have to identify who the individual is and that individual has some capacity as a corporate officer and secondly that that individual's executing the document on behalf of the entity that is signing the instrument there's no dispute that there's one missing leg in all of these deeds of trust not that there's any not of reference to the corporate identity of the individual signing in every case it's nate piles who is the president every one of these notaries properly identifies him as a corporate officer identifies him in that capacity has not altered acting in that capacity right i'm sorry it's not clear whether he's acting in that capacity it seems to me that's the issue he signs and the notary acknowledges that he's doing it on behalf of the entity it's not th river is our case there is no distinction i don't believe what you have is a corporate officer signing on behalf of an entity who then leaves out the missing magic words that i'm signing it on behalf of the entity but clearly is identified as corporate officer that is big of a grain the other thing i would note man just ask you we've we've been debating to some degree whether correct or incorrect forms are used in big river was the correct form is that right i would say again it was a hybrid form it wasn't an individual notary acknowledgement form because it again did reference that the individual signs and corporate form it well it was a corporate form  the distinction that it left out the reference to i'm signing this on behalf of the entity which so that's what's the difference then why you talk about a hybrid form is your hybrid form different in nature from the whatever form it's used in big river i would say this your honor that well the st answer is yes or no and then you might say that whatever and then i would say yes i think it's closer to the corporate form  is to the individual form because it references a corporate person it references a corporate office or acting and on behalf of and don't understand is the same or different in the form as big river it's the same as what was used in big river it's virtually identical but the thing that i'd like to draw the panel's attention to is that these issues going back to the jordan case the old one thousand nine hundred and fifty seven case that was a chattel mortgage case and so you had no reference to the individual being a corporate officer i mean that's so distinguishable to me that's not really the wrong place to begin the proper place to begin as you look at the statute in the statute says in the language that's in the statute says substantial compliance in all of our case law all of our prior case law has made reference to that language so long it's as it is in substantial compliance with the statute and the language we're talking about isn't magic language the statute specifically says so long it's said this is safe harbor language if you use this form you're you're golden but this is not an am satisfied house just so you have an opportunity to respond to the trustees argument idaho supreme court has pretty strictly in some cases right they would they have said you can you can reform a lot and there's a presumption of regularity but you got to use the right form of reform here i'd say we have stronger argument for you he's the one pound big river green it's truly indistinguishable and i don't mean to put words in your mouth but court has done what it's done in terms of that seems to me the line in the sand it is the trustees argument that the one thing you can't do is we can't do is pretend that the correct form was used in the form issue isn't addressed in the stat if used me in the case law that we're talking about the one case that the trustee relies on heavily as this case salad  salad days a totally different holding the language there quoting is dicta the case we had to do with notice about tax deeds right and what they were relying on there was basically did the notice that went to  the personal representative and not to the nominal purchaser of the contract of sale and again i would say that that was ticked at that then i don't think that necessarily harms our argument that if given the substantial  significant implications here do you think we should ask the idaho supreme court what the answer is i think of idaho and i think that's a very good point i think that is exactly what happened in the two cases that we've talked about the th circuit court of appeals case in big river grain and then in the new concepts realty new concept really is exactly what the trustee of a here tried to do which was got a decision out of the bankruptcy court that was favorable appealed and then it was t he took it to the th circuit the th circuit said let's certify that to the state supreme court which they did in our state supreme court the final word on this is new concepts realty new concepts realty says if you can determine the missing two ingredients was it a corporate office or were they executing on behalf of the entity if you can find that within the four corners  within the four corners this is the case new concept is the case where there was a nd one sorry excuse me that there's simply to make your point they did begin with the with the presumption that there's a valid acknowledgement if you're beginning with that but that the the overriding point there was that you don't have to have strict compliance with the the language used in fifty five thousand seven hundred and eleven and that  that the recent statutory range indicates that that idaho is going to look at this with a require less strict compliance i think that to me that's a red herring and whether the whether the statute was amended i think it is less strict if you will but i think that amendment to the statute for notary acknowledgements came as the sort of our uniform laws overview and updates to the statutes dealing with it no real acknowledgements not because there was a question this issue was this was concluded decisively in one thousand nine hundred and four after we had big river green and we had new concepts realty there has never been a challenge in the state of idaho questioning whether a notary acknowledgment that has the missing information and uses a reference to a corporate identity and to the gifts of the corporation those have never been challenged those who have maybe i misunderstood you but did you say that big river case they have certified that to that idaho supreme court the one that was certified i misspoke there urine or was the new concepts r proposition that the trustee would have you assume it does that you're dealing in that case with a personal representative of a state who uses a simple juror that doesn't even pretend to use an acknowledgement form at all so i don't think that's relevant i think that what you're when you look at the case is that idaho supreme court has decided it says if you can find that information and so long as there's a reference you've got to have a reference to a corporate officer i think that is there and that is what we have in this case i think what we clearly have is the big river grain case being reargue money some years later on the same basic fact pattern so you know if the  of trust here was strafford man attorney or by and house bank loan if it was the de the debtor defended his name is nathan piles and he did these himself thank you for your time thank you honor addressing the bigger case st i would i would disagree that that was a corporate form used in that case it's pretty clearly a personal acknowledgement form that they just included a single reference to his corporate decided generally yes i think it was wrongly decided because the court didn't recognise that it was a different form than was required it determined it to be a corporate form when it wasn't actually a corporate form the the only two cases in idaho where incorrect forms were used the salad a case in the jordan case that has been pretty clear that the reformation of those deeds is inappropriate  counsel stated that died a whole rule is if you can find the information somewhere in the document then will allow that form to be reformed i think that's true if the notary acknowledgment begins with the correct four but it doesn't  thank you for the briefing and also thank you for coming over from idaho