the first rule that i would want the court to fly in this case is a relative rather simple rule it's rule that was found by the lower court well and that is that the of income and five point six zero nine a which is in the section that defines what constitutes anyway you're saying the trust just exchanged one asset for another if the assets never left the trust  what's given to the person is not the purchase price of the other was given to the person is the use of the automobile in this case they attributed the entire purchase price of automobiles to her so your position would be they should have attributed to his income the depreciation of as the court seemed to want to do but let's assume that's the case of what sort of a proof would they need to bring forth is it just a i just said depreciation words that the value of the right figure on what hoover would charge to go was certain distance that sort of thing or am or if you are using the r c made an unreasoned decision we would say it's an unreasoned decision and we send it back and you have to reason that we wouldn't purport to define the standard for them because presumably there's a range of choices as to what the agency could select law i understand bob just had her first this particular claim if we remained for a recalculation of the because of the car they got the car wrong and then you say the same thing at the cats issue wrong and i thousand three claims i thought you were telling us that you're bringing a mass law challenge to the brookline housing authority which i assume is your cause it's pendant to your federal cla so their argument is that once the money is in the front then any distribution from a pretty much with a few exceptions is income yes you below that there were several things which should not have been considered income as the car because was owned by the trust the cat medical care because it was required for her peace of mind properly chargeable as income it was saying that point housing authority got some of those wrong with respect to the cats and the automobile etc and therefore it should be consider them so but isn't i mean guy just misunderstood what it was doing but since you're saying that all of the counts all of the issues about what counted as income both the big ticket item and the sort of subsidiary ones were brought both under state and federal law i had thought the district court since it clearly was remaining was simply wondering that as to the state and federal law claims you lose in dispersement some distributions from a special needs trust in calculating her annual income for section eight eligibility purposes was a fair and reasonable and commonsensical reading of the regulations that apply to the determination of actually well that lethally to be when she got this money if you put it in the front that doesn't affect isn't the question whether you have health related what is eaten right correct yes that's eventually that's the first question we all have to resolve is whether they the properly considered distributions from this trust to be income annual income as that term is defined in the regulations here's what i think is the real crux of this case and i think to some extent the presence of the special needs trust creates a bit of a distraction because ultimately our position is that it doesn't matter whether this money is spent by or on behalf of of out of a distribution from a trust or as we said in some of the papers and as judge on mentioned in his decision whether she had simply placed this lump sum of money under her mattress or in a cookie jar and spent it that way it doesn't matter the real issue is whether money that's received in the first instance as a lump sum addition to family assets whether it's a worker's comp award whether it's an inheritance that's an example the specific in the statute whether it's a personal injury settlement a capital gain it doesn't matter if it's received in the first instant as a l addition to the family asked us does that mean that bonnie is excluded from being included in the calculation of annual income in the year that it's received  wants or is it excluded forever and it's their possession that lump sum additions to family assets are excluded from the annual income calculation forever it's also not an asset but i don't understand how that is if it's in the pile by her bed it becomes income when she spends it correct but your argument doesn't depend on that we could just read in the reg i thought we could decide this that there's a really good seems to say despite the money coming out of the trust to her it's not she doesn't control that trust so it's money like your friend gives you any money we just look at them we call it income if it meets the income definition then you go to the income definition there's nothing that suggests money coming from a trust is not income so that's end of story we don't have to buy that first premise it's only because it's their position that wants a lot always allows you but i'm saying suppose they're right on that can use the when we can still win it in the sense that well let me back up if they're actually right about that a lot of some addition to family assets is for ever exclude from ever being included in the calculation no matter when the body is that matter how much it's that no matter what it is spent for that we lose the why then i don't understand it i thought under the reg you look at dispersants from the trust and you're supposed to decide that money coming out of the trust if it meets the income definition that money wherever whatever was the source of the trust and here i thought your position was that money does we think it's not a lump sum it's not a settlement it's cetera so why do a money coming out of the trust i only care about it because i'm forced to by their position which is that i don't even i don't even get to try to define whether it's in call or not or exclude it from  never in the first instance if the trust is funded by a lump sum subtle yet according to their reading of the regulations is not in ever if they're literally have been heralded a million dollars put that money anywhere in a bank account under the mattress in a special needs trust and she could have spent it on anything at any time in any  amount and by their reading of the regulations required housing authority would not be able to include any of those expenditures in her annual income calculation ever has and i think parent though in having th system that excludes assets the reason why not i was kind of surprised reading this that i could go if i had no income in eat the regs even if i have two hundred million dollars sitting in their bonds well if you had two hundred million you look at so if you're going to have that system that sets aside the assets and doesn't force people to spend assets as a condition of qualifying and why why when the assets are liquidated or changed to another asset would it make any difference well i think it might make a difference if the assets were liquidated and the first participant in the in the program took a distribution of some of those assets and used them to income that is not explicitly excluded elsewhere in section five point six zero is considered to be available for housing as i understand on the special needs trust the way i see you looking at it correct me if i'm  on is that once something goes into that and stays into it it's invisible enough that invisible to the house yes story correct but once it comes out of it you then treat it like it would have been had it not gone into it if it's earnings then paid off its income right away if it's just the assets that have come out of it you treat them like a lump sum assets and hence that gets you to your position that lump sum assets outside not pretending this to be a perfect system we have designed it from the ground up with a with a clean slate the reason why one some additions to family assets are not included in the calculation income was typically a high for a very low five figure two thousand have she comes into a personal injury supplement or several hundred thousand dollars if that money were considered to be annual income in two thousand that she would be off the charts she wouldn't qualify for the program work and she's back at the end of the way for the next following year is that couple questions is this one to y so here's what i just don't fully understand the trust here she has no control over her so it could be as if it was someone else's money comes to a trust she has doesn't even know the trust exist is clear that if money comes from such a trust to her it counts as income why is this any different put aside the issue of what a lump sum settlement is or anything like th is a trust over which she has no control which is dispersing money to her there one hundred seems to say we treat that as income and then we go to the income ready and the income really doesn't include an exclusion here so what's the problem maybe there's a problem with it but what i'm trying to figure out what it is because that seems to be a much more direct route but maybe it's not the brooklyn housing authorities understanding of how the great work it's it's our understanding of how it should nothing once the money is in the trust it's money that gets and distributions are taken from the trust that money is treated the same as any other source of income whether it's earnings whether it's money from a bank account whatever car maybe and the cats unfetter and in fact there were roughly nine thousand dollars of exclusions that were credited to her in two thousand and thirteen i think is that you're talking about precisely for medical expenses of the consequence to his client here we have we have never taken the position that establishing a special needs trust has the effect of automatically getting her out of the program she can spend money out of that trust as however she sees fit but to the extent that those expenditures are not explicitly excluded by the statute they're included in income and in a low income program like this it's appropriate for the housing monetary or not which go to or on behalf of the family so i would suggest that's a broad enough ok so if she uses the ride obviously which is a subsidized program when trust has no income you know that you put one hundred thousand in a year later the still hundred thousand there when that's distributed out or that is treated as i understand it as if she just acquired a lump sum as i would i would say probably not it would be a lump sum asset when the when the trust was first funded ok he would treat it as an aged lump sum nasa maybe but if it was all received five years later as a as a wops of distribution for her i think at that point it is not so and why is that treated differently than any other lump sum asset because of the fact that she's not eligible for a subsidy in other words if she in that one year where you have this mike effect and she's no longer eligible for a subsidy does she get evicted what happens your honor is and this is in the this is the brooke white house an authority had no plan which is crafted sort of cut and pasted from the regulations once a participant in the section eight program as a fact that we have zero voucher for one hundred eighty days then they are removed from the program so if she were to re up she got up to go so if if that happens in one year she's out and then she go to the bottom of the court at state agencies by foot but the reason that met there's no direct cause of action under section eight program is that right that's correct ok so if there's a claim is there any other claim that thinks that you applied the wrong standard news we know who have rights you know i read that and was puzzled by it because i thought i had won the case outright and then in the last seven or eight pages i'm reading that sounds like judge john might have come to a different opinion had he been the one reviewing her her administrative appeal in the first instance but the fact is that in the earlier part of his decision he found that  that our reading of the regulations was fair and reasonable and that our application of those applications to ms can't raise factual circumstances was not legally erroneous so having concluded authority with respect to judge young i think at that point his job was over and he had no further jurisdiction over the case for him to remain after having ruled in our favor on every claim that was brought