in the face of a statute of maryland statute which specifically would seem to contradict that result and it addressing the unclean hands issue the most striking thing about the after size of that doctrine in this instance is that it's at odds with what the trial judge appeared to expect and anticipate the trial judge in the in the state court had her all the evidence had and seen the demeanor of the witnesses and everything in front of him and when he issued his decision and when he ruled invalidate the banks second amendment because of his view that the bank should've known of the competence of the signer not withstanding that now sitting having heard all of that he went out of his way to make sure that the funds at issue were not automatically given to the bottle hands they were put in the registry of the court because before any of that was decided the bank could file this counter claim and the and the court stayed on the record there are issues about the legitimacy of these trust that were used to as the recipients of the insurance proceeds so the trial judge in the in the state equivalent to a judge saying i want to hear the claim of one side for first and then deciding after hearing that that he's so  put off by what he's seen there that he's not even going to allow the other side put on their case but the court had made that is the maryland circuit court made some pretty damning factual findings from your point of view did not that time signature have been forged on the second forbearance agreement that counsel for the bank had specifically advised the bank to get a medical examination before allowing john incompetent judge signature was valid and the forgery had to do with the a separate document and assignment document that tom buckingham committed forgery is a fine distinction between someone who is has dimentia and someone who is legally incompetent sign a document and there was a lot of testimony about that th everything about the case this judge at the end of the day said i expect you know just to pay and making it possible for this additional claim of the bank having to do with the alleged wrongful conduct of david buckingham that should go forward and i'm going to keep this money here it's all that's been resolved so it is the claims that the bank is asserting now wouldn't your client have had those crimes and it never engaged in the second forbearance agreement precisely and this is where we think it goes beyond simply trying to protect the integrity of the federal court and into punishing the bank because the bank left over five million dollars to this company that had thrived for a long time they went in there with their rights as an unsecured creditor and they were scrambling around and they were dealing with the president of a company tottenham they were trying to enforce this on a old man who didn't know it was going on where it's clear that there is a conflict within about an him family david biting him didn't like the fact that tyler was trying to deal with the banks and to keep the company alive by continuing to work with the ba and so it wasn't so much that the bank was just trying to force this on all man who didn't know any better was dealing with tottenham and the banks representative were it was out the bank advance of this just all seven hundred fifty thousand dollars but the the point is that this is goes beyond to the point of punishing the bank because the district court's ruling is no different than if the bank came in and after having been ruled against in the state court and so we didn't want to try to get a judgment as an unsecured creditor against the company at this point and the district court saying i'm not in a let you come into my court and get a judgment because i'm so founded by the actions that the state court found that i'm going to preclude you from exercising your rights as a unsecured primer and we think that goes beyond on trying to protect  integrity of the court in a punishing the back there is there is no way the decisions of the that the judge relies upon the moment of decision the turn decision involve extraordinarily different or factual setting where someone did actually take an act contrary positions in the pork had in the case of mona either lied in one proceeding or he's lying the other proceed and in turn or likewise there was this egregious conduct that had occurred and somebody coming into the court and saying i'm not getting my fair share of the ill gotten gains that my there's nothing of that in this case it was a bad judgment on behalf of our account officer and it's striking that the state court judge was on his way to say i'm not with just moving over to the front of a conveyance account because we have to prevail on the unclean hands and we have to prevail on another issue the ruling that the court  provides it in title proceeds exempt from creditors but it deals generally with the relationship between life insurance beneficiaries and creditors the and the of that says explicitly a change of beneficiary assignment or other transfer is valid except for transfer with actual intent to hinder the way or fraud creditors now mr buckingham would say well we can explain that it's just has to do with secure creditors because of prior section has to do with that but it doesn't limit it all to  secure creditors and it is obvious that but for the conduct that took place here the bank as an unsecured creditor would have had the right to transferred the money to himself as a trustee of these trusts and the money at the end of the day went to the buckingham family and not to the creditor millions of dollars that it would have gone to the corporation as the default backup beneficiary if david had not intervened and there was evidence that we want to present to the court in the form of that e mail that where he's directly arguing with his brother saying if we don't take this action if i don't doesn't the guardianship statute allow the guardian to do that it does not your honor the guardianship statute makes no mention of that capability and even though there are specifying other types of things that a guardian can do with respect to insurance policies all those are the guardian can sell the policy is that correct the guardian could arguably sell the policy but that in this instance we're talking about the change of of beneficiaries and  the the powers that are given to the guardian in the statute are ones that will impact on the well being of the war while the war is a law by definition a change in insurance beneficiary's only has comes into play when the war has died and so is beyond the types of things that would normally be done by a guardian we cited numerable cases where the courts for years and years have said that this is not within the power of the guardian and they explain that while i will have a guardian override the wishes of the incompetent as to who the beneficiary would be whether they were perfectly competent we're not going to let the guardian come in and change that without getting some authority from the core the legislature list of many different things that can be done in the context of a life insurance policy but didn't mention that instead they want to rely on that inference being made from the at the bank actually inserted into the business at some control was privy to medical records that gave john only six months to live cannot be wrong i hear you on that but isn't the result of this the district courts out what cation of the unclean hands doctrine is that the effect was not only that the bank lost the ability to exercise rights as a secured credit or into the insurance proceeds which is where the you know unclean hands conduct took place but the district court said not only do you not get the benefit of your and that with all unclean hands conduct i'm going back to the position you had before you even gauge then that and i'm a lemonade in the right you have the rights you had as  so that the bank after lending millions of dollars goes away and with nothing and it seems like he's taken he's gone beyond poor hitting the bank from  benefiting from it unclean hands conduct which i understand to not only that that not getting the benefit of the rights it had before it and gauge then that can i understand  the question your honor and i think there's certainly something of that in fact and i think there's almost both going to be something about effect when the and i'm writing it off and the court said because of that and the contrary to the position he was taking in front of the judge right that is that i'm not liable for that get that but that's not what we have here we have it doesn't appear to me i mean we have the district court setting the fire and things of unclean hands for him being the bank from getting a security interest that taking the secure position as as a creditor which i get that makes sense but they've gone beyond that it appears to me and say you're we're not we're reaching back and not even let then tell me how you were stablish the nexus with regard to the the buckingham the john hancock policy the john hancock passage runner where's the nexus there if you agree i mean do you that's what i'm gleaning from your argument that you tell me are you basing it on the subject matter of the unclean hands rather than any status of the creditor or or the nomenclature she lied when he drew ok mission he should then if that is your position what is the nexus to the john hancock policies which were not part of the second poor parents agreement the john hancock policies were not part of the forbearance agreement so they weren't the subject of the unclean hands they were not no they were not directly implicated in that your honor but how did they get swept into the district court's ruling also within the discretion of who are right but i need you i want a factual answer from you if you don't mind what are de unclean hands here up the bank with regard to the john hancock policy as to those question a separate one it looks like in the industry of whether a bigger consideration was obtained in the transfer of us there was arguments made in evidence presented on both sides of that accept the your client's position on that which may be the right position at the end of the day but it looks like there is a evidence on both sides of that equation and the  so all they had to take two hundred eighty thousand dollars interest they did have a seven hundred fifty thousand dollars interest they do not want to have million dollar interest mr buckingham had to control seventy that they were actually on the valuation that was given by the insurance company because the parties had no idea how about you  hundred thousand dollars i don't know how they get it but from our point of view this argument that well it was worth a lot more because when he died it was going to be almost a million now dollars and you can bet that's so what they only had two hundred thousand argument and it's based on a false understanding of a misunderstanding of the actual transaction which are big we laid out very clearly both in this recording and in our bridges here the transaction was probably voluntary between the that is that so this was these were heavily burdened policies and the economics are such that it was worth a lot more than any face value of the a lot less rather than the face value of the policies with respect to the john hancock policies several points are quite like to address the notion of this was a total voluntary exchange is  buckingham was on both sides he was insinuating himself on behalf of the corporation as a special agent took steps to do that and then on the other side was receiving it as the trustee of the osprey trust so the notion that it was anything resembling an arm's length transaction is just not true but the other important thing is that the value of the policies is not simply the lesser amount the two eighty and bottom there was a mention in the earlier i hear about common sense arguments predicated on a common sense that if you sell something for one hundred ten thousand and there's an immediate benefit to the purchaser or the seven hundred  fifty that's not a fair equation you don't need an expert to come in and say those two things are not reasonably equivalent moreover the entire predicate for this was that you were on a death bed and  he was expected to die at any time and therefore the advance payments were able to be obtained in that context they wearing god i r s formula supreme court cases that so you just the common sense principle that a policy's value changes and i rest for one might be ok taking into account actuarial tables in one context but if somebody is going getting advance payment as a person's about die then it's a different setting where the value of the policy is essentially its investment value is the full value that could be realized alternately was enormous in the consideration that was paid to the corporation was simply netted out against the proceeds that went to the purchaser of the policies it say we're going to just accept your version of it without going further we submit it is there if we agree with you on the hancock policy what we do  and try to use of pain relief against david buckingham and the others who ultimately receive the the benefits that transaction you're not saying we have to find it's a project of eight you're saying there's a question of who are you representing again could you clarify that process represent the bank again no no i'm sorry yes i know that but with regard to ott with regard to the issue on the fair value is this and i guess i misstated that what i meant what i meant to say was when you talk about fair value was the judge concerned about the fact that you didn't present evidence in other words if there is a dispute as to fact but you have no opportunity to present evidence you see what i'm saying do you still win in terms of it shouldn't have been disposed of on summary judgement because well there were other islands in the record indicating the existence of a higher value you had kind of an opportunity to bring it  home i think by presenting your own habitants of valuation and you didn't do that so i guess my my long winded way getting to the question of would we be giving you a second bite at the apple that you defaulted on in failing to present that we cited a tax court opinions of the core that discusses the common sense evaluation of a policy when somebody is near death and coming to the conclusion that the actual value of the policy is very near through the total potential value because a person's near death in that we think it was error for the court to ignore the obvious that one hundred ten thousand nine hundred seven hundred fifty hundred ten thousand is not equal to over a million dollars one point five million dollars he's just saying you didn't need to present that evidence to survive summary judgment would you need an evidence to get a judgment in your favor and then i think we don't need an expert witness and i think that you have to have a trial i'm not sure we'd have to have a if we said this back what happened i think that the judge committed the court can find that the judge committed error all right what happened finally goes not favor on summary judgment when what happens if that's a evidence it was so obvious and so that you could have simply asked the court to enter judgment in your favor in which i don't have a number and if that's the case there is no dispute it's a legal judgments i mean we were really trying to figure out if i mean if you have evidence that's one thing if you have an argument that's different you are i think are our presentation to a to a court we went back  adopted their formula under what circumstances is it appropriate to use that formula is it appropriate to use when somebody is near death or is that formula really something it's used properly in other  court but we think that it is sufficient based on the the great discrepancy based on the fact that the formula that they used as you know appropriate circumstance and based on the citizens and scotians in the rationale of the fact that when a policy is value is at its full value when somebody is near death which was the whole reason that they were getting the a cash advance in the first place so we think that it is was the actual value that was nowhere near the one hundred ten and i would just say that as the party challenging the transaction we don't have to demonstrate exactly how much it was worth factually we have to demonstrate that the we do want to win but i think what we want to do is to set aside that and the be able we know how much money one ultimately went there and that's what we want the right to b there's no further question