rebuttal that's all right my comments are going to focus on what we see as the primary issue and that is the treatment of the deed in transfer number six and the enforceability of what we call the pastor did the court has done the rather tedious job of tracing title through all these transfers and i don't think there's any dispute as to the tracing but for transfer number six and the controlling issue boils down to this was the quitclaim deed that was executed by the snow family trust on january seventh one thousand nine hundred was it effective or ineffective given the fact that two days prior the trust had executed another quit claim deed conveying its interest in the property now the trustees submit that the deed was in the fact if for the simple that the any after acquired title it might have one because in transfer number five i'm going to back up a little with each one of these deeds transfers what i call to interest the current title interest if they ha interests that then exhausts their interest in the property if they are transferring for example in five chris the snow family trust is transferring the christian oh my current title and if i don't have current title i'm transferring you any exactly what i was going to say for six to be effective the language of the deed would have to say something along the lines i don't have title now if i acquire this each or give it away and then get it back a second time then i give that to you that's what that number six deed would have to say query whether that would be enforceable under the washington statute allowing for after choir title but we don't get to that now court just simply overlooked the importance of intervening deed which gives title back to a friend to or after the first transfer and for the second one so let me let me take transfers instance for example and use that as as an example to explain the reason transfers poor and seven are different than transfers five and six are because of the intervening deed in transfer for christian no conveyed to the family trust is both his present future interest so he can't convey that interest again it's gone so if he had signed another v the next day it would have been ineffect a future interest but it's the new future interest because he gave one away in transfer four got it back and he's given away another one in transfer seven in contrast the transfers the deeds and transfers five the statute provides that you can when you convey a title but don't own it when you sign the deed it conveys any after acquired title so with a statutory warranty deed you do not with regard to these three parties the answer is i don't know and we didn't we did this cross motions for summary judgment early in the case we didn't do discovery we have some suspicions that are in the record that had to do with getting elderly tax credits by who owns the property and things like this and clearly chris now was in there trying to get loans against the property and prove that he had some kind of interest but the fact there's nothing in the record that shows what these people were doing if they knew what they were doing and i certainly don't know what they were doing is easier to sort through this if we knew what was going on overall but we don't know we just have to go frankly make no sense and i think your question your honor what were the parties thinking in doing this one of the important ways to look at this case and try to figure out what's going on there were we know what was going on with they were trying to do was a hypothetical for the w them real quick and i don't think anybody in this room would want to take that particular i have answered that question of the test but you know in the absence of any case ever the leader of us found one in which this fact pattern arose we look to and found two rules of law which i think helped guide this the first is a very simple rule that all detail be given a fact very simple proposition it's one that the bankruptcy trustee has not addressed and completely in all of his briefings and the other is the paramount rule of contract interpretation that the goal of looking at a contract is to try to ascertain what the intent of the parties is and you can't tell them looking at the documents confidence that the result was correct that chris no was in fact in title when he took out the loan starting back in two thousand he previously received a series of other loans on the property and then in january two  thousand applied for who was by that point the largest loan of all four hundred fifty thousand dollars he's got a loan application in which he states under penalty of perjury that this is his call he's live there for twelve years and he is the current owner incurred when the long as you know the first loan in a series of january two thousand there was a second loan it was january july that was the long to my client he refinanced the second or the fourth or fifth time but that's when you're concerned that's the one i concerned with but i also think it's important to look at the context of these two last quit claim deeds why were they signed at that point in time it's because christian l was refinancing his existing loans on this home and because the last deed in the chain of title was the one that said hugh grant t is the snow family trust the lender understandably said i don't know that this makes sense to let's straighten this out let's make sure that the b that doesn't explain at least a million a working church why you have back to back quickly and why that reinforces that in other words when you do a deed or a transfer of an interest in real property there are real property law govern you know property one from law school tells you that so it's one may be for the convenience of the parties that they have some interest in doing all this but when someone grants his interest washington log but you have somebody looking at this chain of tried of the title is trying to figure out what interest to grant or has and wonders do this all the time absolutely obviously that's why they get title insurance because they're afraid that if they somehow something's out there either they aren't aware of here actually owns it and so here you have a transaction in the chain of title and you're saying well we're supposed to look to have strings of evidence to sort  what these people meant we have to look beyond the playing words and the legal concept of what there is to convey and somehow put the people who are looking at the chain of title on some kind of inquiry into the so i gather  situation everybody in this courtroom be confused in terms of looking at the lender at that point tendered exactly what he said they looked at the chain and tell us that this doesn't make sense but let's clarify this and so they talk to the two parties mother and son they both agree that the to be ignored that rule should be applied consistently and if you do that then what we've got here is between and after did number three in which everybody agrees snow is in title and then deed number thank you very very interesting valid transfer of her are you talking about number three for number eight well what i am as i understand it the parties agree that she had title in april of ninety seven from that point on she makes no effort to transfer her right until deed number eight and still what i am asking is why didn't she have the title at that time in january earlier conveyed away his after acquiring for future interest so it immediately went when it went from view up to crest kristen already given away title way back several  they went through this and it's very strange pastor acquired title which i hope is limited to this