ownership of the real estate because the ten thousand dollars was community property admittedly so and it was in a transaction it was use community property cash was used to purchase only way that you can transmit that bit of money or community property between spouses is through a declaration that changes underline the word changes the characterization or ownership of the property would i mean i can understand when you might have let's say a separate piece of a piece a real estate on a separate property and you convey it through a straw person to turn it into i mean any property or vice a versa  think might relieve the parties of the need to make their intentions clear and in the answer to that your honor is under the family and as defined by a if the money is on this community property it has to be transmitted to be changed into non community property but the thing about it is the money was never owned or say anything but community property but it's gone haynes was not about transportation transportation it was a dispute over california it was code sixty two which is in dispute here also  issue which if parties go out and for instance the cake you start a long term marriage and you agree that it's going to be joint tenancy property but the agreement under the family code and other mcdonnell is that within the four corners of that agreement there has to be language indicating a change in the character or ownership and i don't have the head notes here i'm sorry your honor so i can't tell you can you be more here to tell you there's absolute total consistency in the case that a california law i will tell you this however that all of the cases that i've looked at in which transportation was an issue in those cases would be  says i husband the owner is i recall that i actually said i the husband the owner of a separate property grant to husband and wife and that would indicate t opposed to a transfer from a third party but that's better is actually true there are no cases i'm aware of my thought is that that's a critical distinction and you can't really carry it over the macdonald i'm part of some cases the two spouses so long as it's really clear that i had to turn the separate property into community property but and if it's not really clear it doesn't work but it's an altogether different problem from a conveyance from a third party and it looks to me as though the authorities you're relying on are just for the interest spousal conveyances and not conveyances from third parties there's no question that's exactly what the bankruptcy appellate panel held and that's why i'm supervision a can be viewed as effectively creating a presumption that transactions between spouses are not french patients rebuttal by evidence the transaction was documented with  separate property real property there clearly had to be a transportation along the way or no rules at all but effect presupposes that a transportation has to occur when a third party is involved and statute is that when you have spouses there is in effect a statute of frauds between them and it's it's mandatory that the only way they can change their property and you're suggesting there is an exception to that and that don't have anything to do it act conveyances for third person you know your honor if that's true you're out i'm not sure i'm going to be able to convince you otherwise i believe from reading about what i mean about the four unities well i can't remember all four and certainly i don't tell you i've got a lot of the phone calls on this case from lawyers representing trustees around the country and the question is did california create the statute of frauds and did it in creating it limit the way in which spouses could transfer uther property whether it's up or community and other form and does that statute of frauds include the acquisition of property from a third party i believe it does and i believe it does because the cases consist of the same all the way you can do it and what your suggestion is that an acquisition either is not covered with under definition or is an exception to the definition and frankly i don't believe it's working unless the court has any further questions or is or what time a half situation like this where you have a third party granting to husband and wife and somebody challenging that and the reason is obvious who's going to challenge it nobody's nobody's prejudice by by such a transfer because they own in equal shares as they purchased and that's why you're not going to see any cases about this the the where there is always some suspicion where one spouse ends up with a lot more than the other after the after the transaction that there was something untoward going on and that's why the need language and so it wasn't clear the course that there what was intended was it a mere power of attorney or was it intent to transfer ownership and again in burnished in the courts and all that would have been injury award community property in california well in the us going back and forth at some point in history it used to be separate property and then at the time when when the parties at the time in which i was not the word it actually was community property in my understanding and i think that's still the way to live or cancel is there a copy of that the one that was attached to a complaint i couldn't read unfortunately i don't i don't think so in the party stipulated to two there was no dispute about there was an issue about hanes not only hands but you can look at the case of schindler i'm going to reserve the rest of my time many of the authorities that have been cited this case i don't have any problem with and in a vacuum it's the question is you have competing presumptions here and they absolutely clash with each other and the bias in case is the case that held the so i do i would say that one of the reasons that you don't see these cases come up in the dissolution context is there's also a california presumption that property acquired are held jointly i think it is you know that's correct your honor and the large the creditor in this case frankly was created by mr summers so what would happen is the money would come if mr summers prevails the researchers the state will get a third pay it all