or in the there are various questions primarily questions of law arising as to whether the bank proved its claim on the statute in order to get a are they asking us this is the fairly brief and simple record there was no testimony presented to the court was a deposition of the judgment debtor david go or was that was taken in the transcript was submitted along with a number of paper exhibits documents of different kinds of the trustee that were ordered transferred to the judgment creditor by the court one is the home of mr goers and his wife one is the smith barney all questions of law the facts are there not disputed facts we have mr gorst testimony in written form in front of the trial or as well as the exhibits and really i think  proven its face under the act and i think this court certainly has the power and should exercise the power to consider these these questions in order to maintain a sound uniform body was while is to make sure that the right thing is been done here our argument with respect to the home is relatively simple namely that the home fraudulent transfer and it makes sense because in the hands of the tenants by the entirety a judgment creditor who has a judgment against only one of the town it's cannot get out that property it's not subject to process not subject to sale or the for the individual debtors obligations and i mean it could mean a need well that's that's even a question they could certainly file a and i don't think it's clear at all whether or not a willing would be affective and to that as far as i can see there's no oil in oil law in that case the statute doesn't specifically say that your honor one way or the processes typically a summons or citation or something like that and then the seizure follows that so i think if you look at the definition it says that the interest that he had in back in august two thousand  that the creditor wouldn't have a right against anyway is not is not something that could be fraud or be transferred the creditors not losing something there and again because the definition says if it's not subject to process it's not an asset transfers to the trust can be disregarded excuse me under the the doctrine of the apollo real estate investment case we believe that case hol literally without reservation that when a claim of some type is pursued a judgment and a judgment is not or the judgment now becomes  claim it's a new claim it's not the same based on the same facts as judgement is a new and different animal through the doctrine murder and  prior to the time of the judgment being after all be a horse after the initial point rose is is not subject to treatment under section six because of the fact that he suggested in this brief that they out of the apollo cases should be distinguished because of the fact that in that case the party who was seeking to enforce the judgment was actually an  original judgment prodder i don't see anything in that case that suggests that that's a distinction that makes a difference any any more than the fact that the creditor original predator and that day's may have of i don't know your honor that's a that's a good question i think the definition of point is certainly made to be fairly broad but again i think you you run in the same that when they could have found the default when they actually heard of default whatever or the existence of a security interest those could all be classed boys once that was reduced to just once they have a judgement that's now a wife transferred about thirty nine thousand dollars in change from the stuff you account they had to a stock you account in the name of the trust thank you they made that transfer he testified   towards the end of two thousand and ten on over a year later and in early two thousand and eleven he was white's mother made several gifts to the droste that so they continue to have money to use and that the one nine hundred thousand and change that presumed the account at that point in march of two thousand and eleven was the remainder of those gifts our position is they out bank has not proven that that money the one nine hundred thousand was in fact money that was transferred back eighteen months one thousand months earlier in august two thousand and nine in fact the testimony shows that it's not it's money from just that the mother in law made his mother in law  made to the trust so they don't they're not entitle to get that now they come back and say well but wait a minute there's the lowest intermediate balance rules as we point out our grief that we've not seen that used in the context of this type of we're going to assume because the national fraudulent money was put in we're going to assume that as long as there is x amount of money in the attic and all that that's going to be you know what we consider as reachable by the credit bank as the creditor asked to prove what the lowest amount ever was because that's all they're entitled to in this case there was no evidence and we cited cases there have interviews the bank statements which they had they had the citation but they didn't do that so i mean your time yes thank the issue about whether or not those funds were reachable in his brief but not specifically the intermediate balance rule which is how this is actually decided the transfer of funds go into an account to be sent to the bottom of the account record asian point these bank statements not being produced those gaps can still be presumed to be for the trial court level and again if there's any other reason to support the trial court's rule it should be you can have your lettuce and tomatoes with who they are as the rights to enjoy the profits in the rents you have your burger which would be the right to exclusively use and possess and then in that case and it's about entirety you have the bacon which is the statutory exemption for force sale for the debts of only one spouse which is found in fire slashed well that one twelve of the owner like postal procedure and only the little paragraph now fancy by the entirety is very difficult to get and we get into the definition out of asset and under section one sixty two the three the asset for which he is claiming to be exempt it's property  the entirety not subjective process by a creditor upholding a claim against only one i don't think the process needs execution i think that the creation of a judicial lien is a process i also think that if you go to section five slash well that one twelve you will see various processes that the tennessee for the entire property is clearly subject to for example you're not allowed to create a tennessee by the attorney by the entireties for the sole purpose what if they have a home based business they could also get that income through the garnishment process as the last sentence of section five slash twelve one twelve all of those have been transferred they transferred the entire vacant cheeseburger into the goers trust so while the bank has no right now to wait in line to queue up according to his priority rights from reporting this memorandum of judgment in the county in which the property resides so i think that the definition of process and the not subject to process is not soley the execution on the property that is the forced you should say i think there are other proxies that identify my brief which means that is the judge well that's that's just not true otherwise the definition wouldn't say whether or not it's refused the judgment and we also cited a couple of cases the well of the because my client add that right payment that client it was not being paid so it had to get a judgment and then after got a judgment it had to go into a deposition pursue it supplementary proceedings and that's when it finally discovered that the say section eight is the remedy section and that creditor has allowed to elect a remedy my client elected the sale of the property because it already had a judgment and that remedy was granted they requested seven points in which these two revert the property back so we have the statutory language butting heads with the problem law both cannot be carried into effect it's impossible to call what the property back and sell the property pursuits of the statute and in that case the statute should control because that's what section eleven provides for and i believe we also side of the maxwell v bar honest case regarding that one court refused permit the reversion of project to transfer property so and i hope that  we did request that relief pursuant to the lowest unit bonus rule at the trial well and what we did not do was then file with the court all the bank and there's the preexisting claim and then the other claim otherwise you're going to affectively neuter section six because many creditors do not find out about these types of transfers fraudulent transfers aren't something that you call your bank and say default as of that time but the fact of the cases is this of this court's opinion says is that it was in september i think the eleventh of september that the bank in fact did declare a fault call the note do again the claim didn't even come about and tell us the number a lot and when the default occurred the transfer was clearly before that we raised that point i think that there's certainly some lot indicate that the claim would have risen before that whether it be in june or again even all the way back to when the europeans sign but again our principal point is that under apollo the judgement is a new point we're not saying they didn't have a claim before we're saying the judg were fraudulently transferred by that that they they attempted to use the last intermediate balance rule because they didn't have that verily direct proof it was up to them to introduce evidence in the court record is clear but not according to the cases we've cited they've got interviews the whole bash so they can say in this case nineteen thousand and some was the lowest balance that was ever in that account he didn't do that so there is no presumption that in the in the