because the court this case the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the a pelleas on the basis that a court was bound by the state court ruling on fraud and could not revisit damages in doing so they noted that the bankruptcy court noted that it was uneasy with the damages because they didn't think that the appellee in this case the plaintiff was damaged at all the issue that the appellant's take exception with is the ruling that the collateral sto fraud ended the inquiry in ignore the central issue which the opponents raised that's that's critical here because on appeal we're not challenging the fraud finding per se it damages per se that would all be barred under the rocker rooker feldman doctrine but that's not being challenged the central point of our inquiry or objection before the state court was whether the white house pelleas in this case received any money property services extension of credit in exchange for in relation to the fraud in this case that clearly wasn't the case so the bankruptcy court in appellate appellants position was that the core erred  property services an extension of renewal of credit i think it's important to point out with respect to create congressional intent frauds found four or five times within section five hundred and twenty three not all fraud claims specifically some of the other provisions require a more general approach to fraud such as fraud with respect to taxes nondestructive or fraud in connection with securities is no indestructible but when it comes to fraud the central part of my inquiry was that the the court had to go one step further and make a finding that the defendants received money property services in connection with any fraud we certainly disagree don't seem to say no i do agree that there's ambiguity i mean i think some of the problems that i raised before the trial court with respect to the damages in general was the fact that there was actually no i mean even the bankruptcy court found that she didn't judge moore and didn't think there was actual damages and certainly something i raised to her but i think the stronger point that needs to be raised and remounted on appeal is that there was no specific finding so even under five hundred and twenty six or can i see if i'm following there what i think you're saying is there could be maybe there is a kind of fraud that would for example withhold a nasa from someone and tell them you know maybe tell them by not saying anything by omission that you know there's no such asset maybe that's  think that's that's one way of saying it your honor i think there has to be a showing that the fraud the point of the defendant obtained money property or services in relation to the fraud in this case there wasn't the money and property  level that's correct that's correct there is there was a general more unspecified fraud allegation made in two thousand and sixteen with the with his surrender of the collateral so in this case the central part of my argument is that the bankruptcy court even if they were even if the judge martin found that they were bound by record feldmann full faith and credit collateral estoppel on the fraud finding they still had to  judge martin still had to go one step further and make a finding for money property services or an extension renewal of credit that my clients obtained as a result of this fraud that can't be done because a the facts don't support it and that was never a specific element of the california fraud charge that language is specific to the bankruptcy code and it has to be it has to be found i would argue have cements for the court that has to be found by a federal bankruptcy judge in the majority of cases the obtaining money property services a centrist just a foregone conclusion if you look at the talent case the th circuit case cited in our brief that was a foregone conclusion that the defendant received two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in exchange for not disclosing something on his balance sheet so those determinations are rarely analyzed because they don't need to be analyzed but where when it is raised and when it is in a circumstance where you know the one percent like here where it goes to default and there's no finding allegations specific fact none of that regarding my clients obtaining any property or receiving anything of value the court can't find well let me ask you let me ask a different question because i'm really perplexed by the argument so if this was a standalone complaint one cause of that fraud and we know the elements of fraud of the california law if and cleaning judgment that says fraud which we don't have here and there's no appeal you'd still think the judge wouldn't be entitled to apply is typically they would say the judge would still have to make a finding under the general intro of aid to that the defendants received money property or services or at least cite to something on the state court record that would support that finding which is not present in this case ok because there's a bucket of cases that says california fraud and eight to fraud are the same thing which is a problem it isn't the bigger issue here you know well the here's the problem for me is it's a it's a multi factor complaint you know and so are you confident that primary concern has always been that i don't know how you can read into this judgment the judgment is solely predicated on fraud i mean to me at least being an arizona attorney the fact that there were as attorney's fees included in this judgment  you know next we went one step further and i asked the court to find that there was a specific receipt of value from the plaintiffs to the defendant in this surrender of collateral and the court clearly can't make that because the defendants were the ones in possession of the property they never received anything of value the value came back in twenty million one hundred and thirty two thousand and fourteen so that doesn't fit within the confines of the statute and case law and i will acknowledge your honour's that most of the cases just focus on fraud but i think that's because the underlying facts in those cases are clear that there was an exchange of value of money in relation to the representation or misrepresentation so that seems to be the kind of a predicate that is overlooked in most cases because it's such a simple proposition but in this case there was nothing of value received by the defendant or are you essentially saying this would be a can do it the fall case from thence that they were supposed to be ninety thousand dollars and there wasn't and that that's a different question from whether your clients you know received a retainer anything i realize you know you would not consider if it is your and i don't think you should but i you suggesting this is more like that it's sort of a failure to account in a sense as opposed to i'm holding something and i'm taking something i shouldn't  makes sense in light of what you're arguing right that the real problem here is something wasn't turned over that's not necessarily fraught right up here you know the legal theory if if the facts support it it would be ok if your duty which weren't were necessarily platen so that being the case what i would ask the court to do is to remain on this case requesting that the bankruptcy court make an expressed finding that the defendants received money property services or an extension of credit in exchange in relation to the fraud which the bankruptcy court can do i think that's essential bankruptcy question i don't think that language mirrors anything under california state law or general common law generally and i think that's a necessary prerequisite that is to the trial court has to do here and i will agree with with judge taylor i did raise the issues of damages of the contract damages and how that can be a further that court necessarily decided the matter with with the state court and again it was a pretty convoluted matter because it was a six count complaint and the way that the judgment was drawn up in california was pretty hard to discern how that could be necessarily predicated on fraud but i think the clear argument is that the bank the trial court has to make  floor plan contract there was no unless there's something in the recognizing this was just possible where was there and also gate and on the part of the entity to transfer to your client the proceeds of each boeing aero when sold are given whatever else you sell in an archery related business or point it's like a floor plan because the money was loaned to this business to buy inventory and that's they were obligated to do was sell stuff and then every you know what quarter make an interest only payment until a balloon at the end brad fried the free right to use the collateral  perfect their lead on this image or a floating floor it's a different question i think maybe i misunderstood your question that my point is they sold property that was mortgaged but they were entitled to the operating a business i mean you know that's that since the retail business you sell bows and arrows and whatever again i don't know what you sell and there are three business other both parents target maybe there's some sort of a closing i don't know so they sell those things they pay their expenses and they have an obligation to make payment it's not like a car dealership where when they sell the car they're contractually obligated to pay off a specific amount to directly to you at that time that's  obligation to do that right i mean this is interest only until the end at the end of the day though the merchandise which is mortgage should still be there or replace the floating lien obviously go sell a bow and arrow you got to buy another well the floating lien would encumber that but when you sell them he said every chance to run it that way didn't do it well i was out there state for counsel i agree at that it would have been a little bit differently than if we had added but the point is there was multiple allegations that the court points out  fraud was one of them the fact is as the bankruptcy court pointed out the only way you could connect the dots of fraud here is the amount of damages that were awarded and that was the precise amount of damages for fraud in the prayer that were but that's the important point isn't it you had you know because i will give you is that you know as i give him i don't understand how that state court complaint and how that says fraud damages were calculated  because the bankruptcy judge said the only thing that could work is the fraud award why couldn't the state court have done what the easy thing which is one hundred and six thousand and negligence put them was it necessary to get to that number that the state court awarded damages based only on fraud which is the only way you get a five and i'm struggling with that because i as i just did the math i can say i can see some other ways and then we get to that attorney fees and interest and borrow but that has been awarded based on fraud let me respond st of all when you have a multiple count like for victims we take them as we find them and that's what we've got here but the other part of your question i've not yet addressed judge taylor is one of the world you got attorney species on a fraud judgment because it's not contractual and california as you know if  fourteen of our brief we have invited the court's attention to the civil codes the sensually say fraud victim is to be made whole completely and that's  attorney speeds prevention in this context is broad enough to bring in fraud damages it's very it's a very limited attorney fees clause based solely on cost of collection doesn't that that in your default proof looking at your default proof you included the demand letter and the demand letter on which makes demands on account of the fraud damage is not at all directly but very directly on the breach of contract damages also requests one hundred and twenty three thousand four hundred dollars thirty three cents that not correct correct she's not captain she didn't ask for interest in the complaint so they didn't ask for interest in the complaint based on fraud did they say i only ask for interest based on the contract claim correct as a as i read the complaint that's correct respect i understand what you're saying but i think california law is pretty clear the damages are damages and attorneys fees if awarded will are part of costs is just a different animal i didn't buy what you're selling there yeah and that's a huge problem for us and a cost they can be a cost but only provided for by my specific statute and contract which we don't have the well i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point we  to emphasize that when i did raise our st motion for summary judgment i was of the opinion like i believe the panel might partially be that the state court ruling was ambiguous and hard to discern at least from my experience in arizona when there is a default judgment we don't have the standard forms and we usually put in count one the plane of supported x amount of dollars and count x amount of dollars so when i st saw the standard california form that we're not quite familiar with here that was the st issue i raised to judge martin was hey this can't be necessarily decided because it includes attorneys fees and you know getting into the weeds of the declarations in the complaint itself and the different supporting documents and it made it all the more confusing for me but that being said to i do agree with the panel that the fact that this is some sort of a floor plan financing this is just not supported by the record even even the facts as alleged in the complaint there was never a demand for my client to turn over you know some sort of payment each month based upon sales or anything of that nature so it just isn't supported by the course of performance of the parties so i think that really kind of underscores the the plaintiff's attempt in this case to broaden what is otherwise a fairly narrow analysis some are five hundred and twenty three and the fact that my clients really didn't receive anything so i'm troubled by the damages and that's my client has never been accused of fraud in the inducement you can see by the correspondence between the parties when this collateral was surrendered that she invited in accounting and you know it's not uncommon for things to go missing in the course of a business i moved three years ago and i still can't find things so this to me doesn't support fraud it doesn't sell mr carter it doesn't support fraud it doesn't support a really substantial judgment for fraud against my clients based upon you know some discrepancy on inventory accounting so i'd like to emphasize if my claim to just turn this over to a liquidator i don't know if they could be alleged to have committed fraud i mean it seems to me that this is just a breach of contract issue and i don't i would i would encourage the court to remain on the case or dismiss it entirely because i don't think it justifies a court of equity awarding such a significant including as