paladin but that's not correct that's not a correct ruling for one thing the assignment of the deed of trust and the assignments all trash from home savers to investment consultants deal when it came time to actually fund it as he testified clearly mr c p fisher who is the principal of investment consultants said he didn't have the funds and because there was an eminent foreclosure he asked mr both if he could advance the funds to do this deal which mr burroughs threw paladin did can i can i ask a question because that's the i have the most concerns about what you just said so mr boast who was an attorney of the people who are borrowing the money is it dancing the money isn't that taking an interest adverse to a client in contravention of really professional contacts cutting that three thousand three hundred no i don't think it is your honor and the reason and the reason the minute details are that one mr bo says representation of the debtor ceased when the k the chapter thirteen case was dismissed secondly he didn't loan them any money he barked or not he but investment consultants bought a note paladin so how do they know who paladin is they were just we're getting off topic i want to get back to it but i mean i think you're gathering from these questions this is concerning i understand your honor this is one of those situations where no good deed shall go unpunished and it looks bad if you look at the surface but if you look at the totality i don't think it is in one he ceased being while the case was pending did this all get underway while he was clearly their counsel of record he indeed told them that they in his opinion and i'm paraphrasing that he didn't think that they could make this case work that they couldn't afford to do this and so that the best way out of it because they lost or stipulated for adequate protection on a really from state hearing that the their only chance to save this house and this is correct in my opinion the only chance to save the house was if somebody come in came and bought the nd and made a new deal with them they were looking down the barrel of a fore closure they couldn't find a thirteen either the st one in two thousand and fourteen nor the nd one because they didn't have the income and the debt to this nd either frost was too high or that they could not afford it they were go lose their house so he suggested that as a solution i think but i think i think what we're all kind of saying here is at least in my view there may be a way in which this claim turns out to be zero because mr bowser negation of this business transaction with his client or his former client the thing i look at it and did it in a way that they had no way of knowing he was involved let alone complying with the rules  professional conduct that relate to a transaction like that and that's not what the bankruptcy judge did here but the three of us i think all share the same concern about what this deal is all about based on mr bo's involvement not that it was badly intended but the rules fresh still conduct have certain requirements you've got to follow if a lawyer is going to do a deal like this that's an observation not a question i'm sorry that all comment on the court's observation that is clear that if you're going to make a deal loan your client money in essence you have to make the disclosures under three that three hundred and one his representation i think clearly terminated to was designed to end did in fact say the debtors house they were going to lose their house and four days or something like that i forget the exact testimony but they were within days of losing their house and this is a former attorney not their attorney they retained enough violent chapa thirteen once the chapter thirteen case is dismissed i believe under california law that the representation terminates and so he was their former attorney yes but there was no loan to the debtor and i think this gets lost in this case there was no loan to the debt or a promissory notes and negotiable instrument i see i went and purchased is i doubt it's an adjustable instrument but it's probably it's probably some sort of came in a device that would would be bought and sold under article nine and not really transferable under article three  look taking it down a whole path of commercial law we don't necessarily need to go down that's indeed it may indeed be under article nine but the fact is that that's what got purchased the debtors weren't loaned any based upon a one hundred and forty thousand dollars principal the principal and this is somewhat sematic but the principal amount of the loan is seventy two thousand dollars at the time that my client bought it the interest and the principal was  hundred and forty thousand dollars there were two claims which were deemed allowed because they weren't of just the two and there was a relief from stay on a set that sat for that amount or proximately got them out so debt was at the time my client purchased at approximately one hundred and forty thousand dollars the debtors made interest only payments and then they stopped and so that's how we came up with one hundred and sixty three dollars but even if you say look there should have been some credit at least half of the payments a one thousand five hundred and fifteen should have been credited to principal the claim in this case is still one hundred and seventeen thousand dollars to ninety dollars and it's certainly not zero and i'd like to reserve my remaining time but thank you very much all right reasons one being inaccuracy is in need for an attachment to the proof of claim because these are individuals and this is a loan that is attached to the debtors primary residence one addition to the fact that upon request right what did the court actually decide ok with that route i believe that records decision was that the claimant failed to accurately detail its claim and therefore there was not sufficient evidence before the court to determine what that amount is appellants will argue and has argued that there was a no deed of trust there was some money owed that there was something oh and because there was something that's not what the court really really ruled mean and part of the problem is figuring out what rule because you know temporal proximity the last thing that she was very clear about was that i c i was not the claimant and she makes the statement it's without prejudice and she's clear that the right claim it can come in and file a claim but it better be less than the amount stated for the reasons you state but that she didn't really get to what the allowed what the i think that maybe have been part of judge powers decision but i think if you look at our our brief i think it's aligned with the brown case that we talk about where the claimants documents and   you're basically asking us to review the record in full and saying because you're not really arguing that i c i is the wrong creditor from what i'm hearing i see i is the creditor who the deal in purchasing his client's nd deed of trust but maybe the reality is that that's not really your concern unless you attack it from the ethical responsibilities so we raised a concern about but clearly was not reason front of the bankruptcy court i did not raise before the bankruptcy court that i see i was not the proper party so really it sounds and i don't want to put you too much on the spot but you was like us to look at the substance of that evidence that was presented and make our decision as is the business the of it and i believe that judge bauer did do that at the end of the trial she may have focused on the issue of who is the proper get that if you one thousand range i mean so why why would it be disallowed goal correct in an argument your honor is that if the claim that the payments that were made by the debtors were properly applied and if we had an accounting with proper calculations that the amount owing would have been significantly decreased and would not have been one hundred and sixty three thousand that appellant claims is owed in fact what you can see  in the transcript of the trial is that when you take the amount of the proof of claim the one hundred and forty thousand principal what in effect p debtors former counsel was doing was capitalizing on the principle and interest in charging the debtors interest on one hundred and fourteen thousand dollars women which in effect is about twenty five percent interest on the principle so the the proof a plane was completely and totally inaccurate as it as it was filed the claimant have the burden to rectify those errors this case was going for for a number of months close we year when we finally got to trial there was no amendment no no revisions to the  problems so would it be your argument that you have prove a claim is presumably allowed but as soon as you produce evidence that it's not correct the burden shifts to the claimant to provide that evidence and if they don't provide that evidence the claim is disallowed is that kind of the gist of what you're saying i think that that is what the th circuit has said the burden shifts and the claimant then has the burden to prove the numbers in the preplanning or the judge this allowed the claim without prejudice if we can raises my next question as it is why is this a final order right if it's said there's like a dismissal of a lawsuit without prejudice in the current state it will completely obtain a discharge if the debtors complete the case and then we have this outstanding issue i would argue to your honor's that the order disallowing the claim was a final final claim that this court can review then the question becomes what happens if somebody files an amendment to a timely filed proof of claim with the appropriate backup you know then what but then my client has the opportunity to finally reconcile the account and that's what i had requested prior to the petition filing for a year i wanted to see the account so that i could reconcile yet mouth oh and my clients don't deny that they entered thi ous actions of what happened are horrible for my clients but really it comes down to math as i as i indicated to judge bauer the math does not work and the claimant have the duty and the responsibility to clarify the math issue and they failed to do so and therefore their claim was just leveled and we submit that that was approached by judge  i don't have any questions ok you know we counsel for the appellant continues to to comment about no good deed goes unpunished and and i just have to respond to that no good deed goes  debtor's prior counsel mr bose is intentions for this loan to assist his clients in the the good deed put money in his own pocket he was charging again his clients twenty five per cent on a loan because he capitalize on the interest i don't think they'll get this i say there isn't and that's certainly one interpretation and another interpretation is he just got it wrong applied that and that seems to be consistent with the testimony of mr fischer mr ferman was supposed to a certain sure and so it does seem that this is more an observation that he is alive from judge fears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened on that loan and once you get that this is a mathematical application of the principle why why   and and then they increased those interest only payments when the i c i by double so what do you say that is that is dispositive there was a number of years whe they didn't make any payments correct and their clients my clients do not deny that as well your honor but again we go back to the final fact is that if those numbers were wrong and it was an accidental err on the part of the appellant and reconciling be application of payments why haven't they done that why didn't they do that they had a year they they could have one committed to the trial and said we're very sorry we misapplied the payments and this is what the numbers are but they've never done that we don't know what the numbers are the court doesn't know what the numbers are in that why it's appropriate to disallow when the court can't pick a number out of the sky and say well i think based on the way i feel today that the claim should be fifty thousand dollars the claimant have the burden and failed three minutes and twenty four seconds thank you your honor yes it's horrific that the debtors were able to save their house and not get foreclosed on back in two hundred and fifteen or two thousand and fifteen  so ultimately they save their house they're still living in their house today the claim doesn't get to zero essentially they know not withstanding what they said and their evidence is is very weak on that they signed a note or a note and deed of trust for sixty five thousand dollars they got another six thousand five hundred or six thousand four hundred dollars then they don't make a payment for seven years well when you don't make a payment for seven years the balance on your mortgage goes up so one hundred and forty thousand dollars was a properly county elated claim at the though mr berman because he did get the money was pretty clear that that's a result it's a result of the capitalization of the interest and see that  saying is you and your client filed a claim for one hundred and fifty thousand dollars you did not true and i see i did not prove a claim for one hundred and sixty thousand dollars that was the issue that was the claim you two says that the court shall determine shall determine the amount of the claim and it's clearly not zero it can't be zero even they don't contend that it is zero so at a minimum the court should remand the last point that i like to make i know i'm running out of time is that the court focused on the fact that there was no writing between greg bo'sun i c i the there's no need to either for thirty five years it was a handshake deal one million dollars deals are made on sale now afghans are not a golf course all the time i don't think our writing is required and i would ask the court reversed the bankruptcy court every man this for i don't ben among further calculations well thank you very much both of you for your good arguments this will be taken under submission and i hope that the next time we see the two of you it is in a court room with in the same room but if not well we'll keep doing it this way