fifteen minutes for a start mr hogan you may proceed for the appellate cross happily thank you may please the court good afternoon i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal and have spoken recommended award of one million dollars in punitive damages by the bankruptcy court based on what i submit is a legal argument that was not raised by the ducasse parties and which was not supported by the finding and what's in that any and that that is the principal basis of the fraud your honor in fact the district court here held that those are collateral estoppel as to the ducasse defendants there were some additional facts found by the bankruptcy court in terms of the represents ability of the conduct and the intent to harm that support the award of punitive damages and those were adopted by the bankruptcy court and are not challenged on appeal here so it's i would say the two thousand and thirteen decision supplemented by those additional findings adopted by the district court and so i submit that the bankruptcy court taking you the or the district court taking it upon itself to consider and rule upon a legal issue that was not raised by the objecting parties is fair we didn't find much case law one way or the other defining what specific means under the statute of though the supreme court has said that review should be confined to those matters that were specifically  the question whether on cancer or whether it was a civic objection verses arguments that support that objection is it your position that she not only have make a specific objection on the subject matter but she also have to articulate and so are human that can be considered i think you have to articulate the legal reason why you object and that should be what the bet the district court considers your honor because for the very reason that we saw here which is that no one raised the argument adopted by the district court which is that compensatory that mr bill valises out of pocket loss was not compensatory damages but instead equitable and therefore punitive damages were not available under florida law no one had a chance that doesn't make sense to me i don't think i don't think that's what i'm attempting to say your honor i believe that the bankruptcy court should limit the i keep saying the bankruptcy court the district court should limit it's been over review to the specific legal challenge made by the the objecting party because otherwise there's no opportunity to address that issue with the dish record and to correct any misunderstandings that it may have which is what happened here no one breached the issue with the district court because it was not objected to or a basis of a specific basis of the wrong i mean that the bankruptcy court kind of talks about it as compensatory damages but also talks about unjust enrichment unjust enrichment as i understand would sound in  law but incidental the images would sound in equity so if you had been able to present the argument to the district court you're saying you couldn't present what would be your argument that the district court did it wrong yes your honor the district court did do it wrong with all due for estate planning services that he never intended to provide was not compensatory i submit is simply wrong compensatory damages designed to compel compensate the victim in so the comment that it's not a compensatory damage court discussed both i don't think it really matters because florida has abolished the distinction between law and equity that a lot of the cases cited by mr do give us a wide upon which was  figure out whether an action sounds immoral or equity they're still making some kind of distinction they're saying punitive damages don't lie for in actions in equity so they're they're obviously historically an action at law called i believe money had been received and so that the award by the bankruptcy court of compensatory damages wasn't fact legal remedy but i also that florida courts including the angle decision from the florida supreme court makes clear that in the word of actual monetary damages it isn't even necessary to support punitive damages and that's because there is a statute that authorizes punitive damages in florida some of the cases cited by mr ducasse on the equitable issue say even in courts of that would be absent a statutory authorization we can't authorize punitive damages but here in any civil action which is the find in florida as merged actions no longer distinguishing between while on equity as long as the culpability standard is satisfied an award  available and that i believe is consistent with the engle decision and as long as an injury is established for purposes of the fraud claim that's all you need but here in fact a compensatory damage of mr bell ases out of pocket last was pacifically found and awarded by the bankruptcy court and adopted by the district court and that's not before you want to heal those fines and the correct now and i would know the bankruptcy court also found in this was all by clear and convincing evidence by the way that there were significant other injuries that supported the fraud even if it wasn't reducible to a monetary award such as the loss of the mr bell's interest and certain else sees the costs he had to incur and setting aside those those transfers and simply because rescission and an award of out of pocket losses provides more complete relief than benefit of the bargain damages and that's where i think the district court was was confused and that it referred to compensatory damages when what i think the court was really referring to was benefit of art and he and i submit under angle and any of the other cases that are cited you don't need to have benefit of the bargain damages in order to have an award  reconsideration it leaves the question however of what should the court do you well we know that the recommended decision was issued in april of two thousand and seventeen and the district court issued its decision adopting everything legally and factually not until january of two thousand and nineteen the only issue before the court is then this ruling that the damages were equitable and therefore there was no punitive damages otherwise all of the factual findings as to reprehensible ity as to intent to harm and thus the factual finding supporting the amount of punitive damages recommended have been adopted and they're not challenge on appeal so therefore your honour's i submit that the case should be reversed with an instruction to the district court to adopt the award rather than further proceedings thank you thank you yes your honor is thank you  it and that's been you know put in opinions here and there but the fact of the matter is that mr beilin didn't get what he wanted in the district court and he's changing his theory here today all along from his original your honor it does it does have an application for damages in there but in this case the district court awarded equitable damages in the form of the rescission see court didn't well the bankruptcy court said i'm just an arrangement but also said compensatory and then the district court kind of reformulated on that without separating an outsider like my claim well and your honor that brings me to the biggest point that i have with this and that is this of discretion it's not clearly erroneous or any of that it's denoted but which means i don't look it up in the dictionary yesterday just to be sure that what it means is you know you start anew i start over and i can give you an example it's probably not the greatest example but tennessee we have what's called general sessions courts under twenty five dollars mouths basically small claims court if you are and agree party in general sessions court you get the right to appeal the case to circuit court for a trial the notebook and you can either win the case in general sessions and lose in circuit or vice versa it's happened to me a bunch times and that's because the judge is not confined to a record he this bankruptcy judge or if you're this you have to do that in this case because he has it the no vote review that you can take a look at everything fresh everything new put his own eyes on it and his own analysis on it and that's what happened in this case we determined that one hundred and sixteen thousand dollars six cents and six hundred dollars was a acceptable amount to put the parties back where they were before and that's the key r mean i'd like to ask you about the district court ruling my reading of the district court was not that as if the court was finding that this was an equitable remedy but was finding that this was a compensatory remedy but that you couldn't get there were no compensatory damages therefore you couldn't get punitive damages under florida law and what i'm hearing you argue on appeal is the reason you can't get punitive damages here is because it was equitable remedy and i'm not sure the district court really ruled on that basis that there is no punitive damages because of an equitable remedy it sounds like to me you're coming up with this argument for the st time an appeal to justify what happened at the trial level is that is that fair to say respectfully honor your honor no it's not fair to say because i'm from the district court opinion here he says you are entitled to incidental damages for the rescission it does not at any point i don't fully and i again i'm subject to correction i don't know everything i don't believe you ever use the word compensatory damages so i may be mixing things up here today but what i'm trying to get across here is the judge in the district court the novo review incidental to recess that's what i'm trying to get across ok i believe the district court did recognize incidental damages as being an equitable remedy correct and therefore you could not get punitive damages under florida law because  whatever mr develops is doing but also have across the field here yes let me i'm sorry let me just make sure i understand what's going on so my and the way i was looking at it was quite frankly i thought the district court was  but these were compensatory damages they were incidental damages to the equitable remedy that they were spider stand out but i thought the wreck reading of the district court was because it didn't find any compensatory damages you could not get fact but now you're arguing on appeal that you can justify the district court's ruling because the district court awarded incidental damages which you're now characterizing this equitable relief and then over due the district court came up with this came using his own reasoning and analysis came up with this for being the basis for not ordering punitive damages under florida law that's where we're coming from and th where where in the opinion does it send this is this is incidental this is equitable it seems to me this is right i think it seems to me that the court simply say i can recognized that and say that you didn't challenge it and i cited even if you had challenged it you would lose because i could do it incidentally so if you didn't challenge it and that was the  because there was no jurisdiction there these cases were florida state all points they deserve to be st to to be litigated in a florida's state court they should have never been in bankruptcy court never should have been there because the jurisdiction wasn't related to the matter what the argument say may it was not related to jurisdiction with respect to the bankruptcy case this has no bearing mist of elsa's bankruptcy case at all florida state law claims in the form yes your mom's a council to the claims were brought though before the confirmation occurred correct correct ok yes so you're advocating i guess your rule would be that any time  a plan is confirmed all adversarial proceedings just go away regardless of whether the planned result there are no longer for bankruptcy court they have to be dismissed and go back to state court is that what you're arguing well i'm advocating that but it's not without authority the resort's international case does say after confirmation of a reorganization plan retention of bankruptcy jurisdiction may be problematic so it's not something that we're just pulling out of the air it's the handling and the minister and some of the bankruptcy estate even money that was going to come from george bellows from the state all claims was going to george felos or his family it wasn't going to pay creditors they were already  thank you your honor and with respect your honor to correct me the issues in the adversary proceeding mostly arose before the bankruptcy case was even filed they were asserted long before playing confirmation and they all if they're directly or indirectly were based on claims that would provide a benefit to mr bell as his bankruptcy estate i e in terms of personal guarantees that he had made or monies that would be coming directly to him he was in fact in chapter eleven and under wolverine radio the the test for related to jurisdiction is extremely broad if it can have on our briefing on that we've laid out i believe in extensive detail and even the rd circuit which mr brown cites for the the close nexus test for cases that arise post confirmation that arise or filed those confirmation has been rejected by the rd circuit in cases that were filed before confirmation so even the rd circuit support the existence of related jurisdiction here that's mr hogan let me ask you a quick question about the merits  is the does your best authority does this statute for the proposition that in a damages are available when a plaintiff aleck's the rescission remedy i think i was going to say the statute for you as part of my rebut also think angle is and here's why because i don't i don't believe the characterization of this whether by mr brown or the district court as incidental is an or an equitable is an accurate statement because let's look at what was actually rescinded what was rescinded were assignments of mr of ellis's interest in certain l l c he's a promissory note with the ducasse entity known as quick capital and  actually those were the only things rescinded the one hundred and sixteen thousand dollars relates to checks that mr ducasse induced mr to beguile us to right on the promise i'm going to give you the state planning advice that was part of the larger fraud designed to deprive mr bell's of all of his assets but it's in no way incidental to the decision of those those instruments so i submit that since the merger of equity and law it doesn't matter if you characterize it as equitable but in fact here that would be that is an inaccurate characterization because as we know unjust enrichment is legal and in fact the bankruptcy court made clear it was really fraud that supported the unjust enrichment  and it was not incidental to anything it was based on a specific fraudulent promise by mr ducasse that that induced the payment of these funds and it's an out of pocket