construed the subject statute civil code california twenty nine twenty four j differently at the time that it was handling the surplus funds and the point in time where it actually resulted in a lawsuit as we know calabar stern maintains that twenty nine twenty four j a four  c in fact constitutes a thirty day statue of limitations if we look at the record which for this purpose of this appeal is is pretty much an undisputed they treated that entirely differently they did not act consistent with the position that they've taken during the course of litigation but you can't and i ask you just sort of  s would have woken up earlier me didn't whatever it did and it woke up when it woke up so what's wrong with that train of logic funny explain the problem with that is where the trustee has an obligation of due diligence to to resolve competing claims and as the statute itself explains other evidence of conflicts and within that's ninety days ninety days fails to act as it should then it has breached the duty that it owes to g e capital and of course to to any other potential claimants to the surplus fun when the funds must have been in or pled under section twenty nine to twenty twenty four j once again at that point in time jihadist have cow western performed as it was required in this case in favor the i r s but nevertheless the fact is now for a closed action against cal western i'm not aware of any authority that says that there isn't some type of joint and several large delivery between these two multiple defend statutory violation against cow western which is clear on evidence and which cause damages if you know maybe the case that there may not be double remedy double remedy but that's a different issue nevertheless the point here is that cow western clearly had a violation of statutory violation and it did cause damage and it did place gene and did different position and with respect to its rights and remedies and it did cause harm and it did prevent g e from number one from collecting surplus funds based on his priority number two from even having its day in court by way of inner pleader it it's it seems in congress me that cow western has all these duties imposed by statute but then never has any consequence for it and it also provides almost a persian incentive for the trustee to simply in situations like  good morning morning counsel may have played to court peter salmon on behalf of cow western we can dance corporation and the questions that justice reimer and justice known pose to really the ones that go to the heart of one of the defenses done what it was supposed to do when it was supposed to do it the argument would go it necessarily follows that the seniority rights or nine twenty four today the california civil code constituted negligence even if you go past that argument we're still dealing with the common law elements of negligence and the damage is that g e capital mortgage says  approximately caused by cow western's failure to deposit or interplay those funds within that outside statutory maximum period and it's just as noonan pointed out what the failed theory that g e capital remedy for parties other than the taxpayer who claim an interest in the funds that are levied by the i r s and where the theory falls apart for g e capital mortgage and where they even if this event is presented to the district court where they fail to the outside period for cult western did to play the fun's lever and even if this theory of grimm been presented in the district court the same defense applied that the sixty three thirty two of the internal evaluation at that point right but it is still the issue that nothing it comes down to the proximate cause issue whether you whether it's proximate cause or into your position is there's absolutely nothing left over so executed after payment was made on yes your honor the payment on the levy was made sometime shortly after june seventh of nine hundred ninety nine the original complaint filed by g e capital wasn't until december twenty seventh of nineteen ninety nine proximate causation is not there and no disfigured issue of material fact could be found that cal western somehow rendered g e and unable to pursue its remedies under seventy four twenty six of the two for violation of twenty nine twenty four j of the california civil code and its pointed out and summary judgment not opposed as raised by cal western on appeal and not addressed there is no  action for violation of statute unless the statute specifically provides for that remedy and they said they go insurance case and in this case twenty one twenty four j did not provide a right of action simply based upon the violation of statute would be the largest amount but but as we see there were consequences that came about as a result of cal western's multiple breaches not only its failure to prioritize but also its failure to honor please and we're here today when five six years later as a result of what could have easily been resolved at the time have cal western simply did what it intended to do when it recognized on march twenty second only four days after having received  as a result of your failure to disperse the funds based on the priority set forth in the statute twenty nine twenty four k the fact that you have to wait five or six years as the case has been in order to collect the damages that flowed by virtue of simply that negligence that that that took place by cal western that's those those are what you know those are other items of damages that have monetary value to them that would be recovered and with respect to the two claims i believe the negligence claim under statutory violation i think they are related i think there's no question that by virtue of the statute difference but there are there is a liability and damages that flow from that and if you have any other questions that i can address i don't think so th