here the way you are appealing raise the number of issues the court knows but i really see it coming down to re critical issues the st being the issue of whether or not the bankruptcy court identified whom being asserted and what their role if any in the prior litigation and fundamentally this is an issue of due process issue pretty requires that the court find that there is a unity of interest requires and it require basically a relationship between the parties and here we have a very you know we do have a unique set of facts but i we did have that happen here where appellate purchased the defense of the pot right and we oppose that and we appealed that ruling when the court permitted that to happen for a couple of reasons actually because of th saying this is why we want to do this also based on other issues related to the adequacy of price and whether there be a meaningful distribution of creditors but certainly creditors can do what has happened here and i about appeal you can save that money and you know here and it may be a good business decision to do so but that doesn't mean you can step into the shoes  right that would be an issue but you're saying because his appellate rights got stripped off the privity is cut off is that essentially what you're saying yes and i think there were there was go that way because i want to take you a slightly different direction is that really a problem of privity or is that a problem of whether applying preclusion would be you know fair in the circumstances  appellee here and then dismiss the case so so i think there is certainly and we made these arguments as to the fairness of public policy considerations but in terms of privity i think trustee at that point that's that's when he really got separated from his appellate rights right i think temper well in this case yes when you file the bankruptcy case all your assets come into the estate and they're subject not be sold by the church so it doesn't seem to be consistent to say that in those cases just because the trustee couldn't find a buyer or because the creditor wasn't pursuing this litigation strategy th higher the creditor happens to perceive the strategy and pursue it then the doctor doesn't have the right one anyway why would that be the case i mean somebody is going to have the car sold because it happens to have seen this already or it happens to be a nice car or it happens to be a collector's car or so and somebody else may not because they're driving a beater and nobody wants it i mean you know there's all sorts of what ifs  don't you as a debtor assume i mean you've got to assume the risk that everything you have might be subject to liquidation including your appellate rights i mean i position of your judgment creditor this case would be to say mr trustee all pay your seven thousand five hundred dollars today if you'll dismiss this appeal and then your client's in exactly the same position the only thing that has happened is the manner in which it's accomplished changes so  i'm not sure that the intervention of a rd party buyer is really the distinction you want to make well it's not it's not really the rd party buyer distinction that i want to make it to that there but he actually is in one of their actual interests in terms of when they step into the rights they purchase in asserting those rights what are what are their interests are they acting as a representative of the debt or you can forsee is a case for me to be interested i'm a debtor and another party whether or not there creditor are actually a lying and that creditor maybe they're going to be jointly liable and maybe they think reverse the judgment that would impact them and they want to purchase the rights and they would actually  represent that others interest in the appeal here you know that and it does he sometimes is that person as well who may step in and say i actually want to win this thing and the better maybe in those cases the be found but you know and i what i would like to do with my next door it's to address the specific issues some of the key hambo really have the key specific issues that are raised in the our arguments the appellant's entire approach to this appeal is to take issue with every judge who has for any aspect of this  at the time that the court of appeal addresses the issue in this case the time that the court of appeal dismissed the appeal the argument that has been made which says that the entity which holds the appeal rights has to have the same interest in the debtor is not california law the case that the appellant relies on in their refers to in mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property comma or two such i get a vacation of interest of one person with her as to represent the same legal rights etc etc so the legal requirement in california for pretty is in the disjunct it you could have an identification of interests but that's not required if you have what the very case they absolutely because we have a contract right became an asset of his bankruptcy estate owned by as trustee who had a duty to liquidate it when he found the bankruptcy my client stepped up and bought that we paid good money for that right to terminate the terminate litigation q and we were very clear with the bankruptcy court we were clear with the trustee we were clear with this court when it affirmed that sale or that we intended to we bought the claim from the bankruptcy trustee as the successor to the original owner we have the right to dismiss that and we said we will if you have any california again i apologize for interrupting it is it detriment that you know i'm not on video by my house but do you have any california case that deals with the situation where there is a successor the hold that a successor in interest under analogous circumstances is in privity for purposes of issue preclusion i don't believe that here in the media in the exact circumstance that that you are asking i would also note your honor that the argument that is being made is essential hit and run around what i believe is already law of the case which is that the court went ahead and denied a stay of that and i think the argument that the ballot is making is contrary to public policy and particularly to bankruptcy follows well i'm going to do what they're going gary can ask i wanted to st the metrics for selling you those rights and the metrics for what happens in non discharge ability are different do you disagree i don't disagree at all i mean a time you buy has that you take that you take a risk you aren't so you earlier judge taylor when you buy a car you know maybe the tires don't work maybe it's going to be had transmission but we believe under established law isn't that the place where we would correctly she had discretion as to whether to apply because i guess what i'm saying is she didn't have any problems she was going to do that that's correct all right so involvement that she's arguing it under privity i think it will correctly is under public policy would be the place that it was considered and one thing i don't see is that she ever made any findings regarding the inconsistent findings between the state we're in the bankruptcy court public confidence in the in the court system because there is a belief that the state where it is is capable of litigating these issues promotion of judicial economy because we've already had one trial why should we have another trial simply because the issues are different and the prevailing would one is the successor in this case  people are not going to buy these sorts of plans the creditors are going to get less or they're certainly going to pay less money do you think we can to the extent we can't find that quality of finding to the record it at that exist can does not need to remap this court judge smithville two very lengthy hearings on our summary judgment addressing all of these issues she analyzed very carefully the state where activities including the ones that i've that i've specifically laid out all right judge breaker i interrupted you do you want to ask you a question now i think you covered it probably more to believe that i could thank you though i doubt that but thank you two of you authors participate because in that case we had the appellate rights were owned by the bankruptcy trustee and the state court of appeal it he could have controlled the litigation in this particular case this debtor was particularly capable of doing that he was making one hundred and forty thousand dollars a year when he filed his no has that bankruptcy he could have control it he chose not to subject his by this petition earnings to his creditors and to the bankruptcy and the trade off or that the voluntary decision he made was that he allowed the the appeal rights actually bid for these rights in the resale order appeal and dealt with there that he be i think up to eight thousand dollars each us to stop bidding he made a business decision mi series of business decisions that he is now dealing with that he is now dealing with he had the opportunity and he chose not to do the final point i would like to make your hono personal property that he committed he was bound libel for conversion although that was a small fraction of what was covered by the civil judgment correct mccracken but given the binding of the state wor that the that the debtor ingate in a pattern and practice it is stipulated to having taken these i think it's relevant it's not sufficient going back it's evidence but it's not preclude sievwright on the other other items it it is evidence of the pattern and practice going to the six claim and the issue of the issue of willfulness it's evident that you would have done really well if you had tried it the nd time discussed there are some seriously different facts and what we have here for example and i did look at this the th circuit court of appeals just rendered its decision on the people from this court on may st but in its brief decision it highlights the debtor had an alter ego company that did in fact prosecute the state court appeal all the way through and last clearly that didn't happen here and if somebody is not in privity with their alter ego company boat what i think would be conventional privity and i use the example of a representative of the deceit it's a state the person has died a family member or a trusted person is and that's that seems to be what you want to hear but the statute also talks about successors and interest and its successor in interest couldn't that be someone who simply acquires it why is that and california has a statute for everything i know but when they bother to put a statute in place aren't we will acquire to respect it well i mean the scene in this even example is a good example of where you would have both somebody who has literally been a virtual reference and representative and also the success interest so maybe you can get there as a successor maybe you can get there in a different way but if you don't have that unity if interest if you're not representing the same interests or a virtual representative as the court theory of the estate and i oftentimes will want to pick up where a doctor left off with litigation but in this case judge smith found when she sold it i mean to ten thousand dollars isn't exactly a lot of money  so isn't that isn't that finding albeit in connection with the sale something that's in the record so that we can consider here i don't know where that comes end of the test for issue preclusion i know california law i think part of what the what makes this case complicated is that there's the bankruptcy overlay that normally the bankruptcy law overlay state law and here we have sort of the reverse where we're looking at state law through the would i'm interested in hearing your reaction then especially with what you just said regarding just smooth judgments evaluation on the merits you know there's a tension here obviously between the privy aspect and the public policy not a judge discusses it expressly but she really didn't say much of anything about public policy or any findings and i mean to me this case screams out for a public policy analysis you know i think ideally that's done by the fairness in the policy because integrity in the judicial system is one of the new great policies of lucy to set forth and you know the question here i think is it is what happened here fair and i think that should be looked at from the perspective of state law not bankruptcy law which you know pelley has argued i have read you consent to everything that could possibly conceivably happen by filing a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief and i just don't think we want to go that direction i think it will chill you know people access to the courts or desire to seek relief when they very well may need it and if you think that's all it thank you and was i'm done on time i have won