assets to his wife karen in payment of debt a huge load to her and it's basically that series of transactions the subject of the preliminary injunction basically the  right you need a protection does the person have an irreparable harm without the injunction is there a lack of an adequate remedy at law and his or it likelihood of success on the merits i would say applying those four rise to the collection efforts is not final because it's on appeal before this court and so i would say that while he has a judgment it's not our final and therefore not clearly ascertain with regard to the element of the lack of an adequate remedy a lawyer and i would say that the plaintiff has had put remedies walk when you go to collect a judgment for example or many things you can do such as a citation and accounting that is pretty much what i would say that essentially what he has done is try to attach all of our some of my client's assets before the judgment is final and so that recognized two categories of fraudulent conveyance one brought in fact one fraud in long proof of fraud in fact requires a showing of an actual intent to injure creditors here my point testified he was the only the money for debt that he owed his wife and on the advice of his counsel there there was no evidence to the contrary and if you look at the elements that statute talks about terms of estab and at that point the client my client mark guaranteed the leases that his wife had because this was a situation where he owned the business she owned the real estate and when they sold the leased from the wife so basically he was then guaranteeing those leases so that the briars could continue in the business if it reduced the obligation on his debt or at least the likelihood that they would go out of business because they couldn't pay police then they he said made a note for part of the lease with his wife and march first two thousand  eight on march third of two thousand and eight the plaintiff's attorney then sent a letter out about some default or some concern on the ronan transaction which was part of this whole deal and it was after that then that there were several other notes that were signed but there again they related back to the lead scaring teams which occurred on february first of two thousand and eight and that's important because one of the things you need to consider is when did this deck happen did they just cook this up in order to deprive the plaintiff and the answer's no that that occurred prior to the letter of it came from the it's close in time but it came right at that would it be reasonable to assume that both of your clients and the bank all knew what was going or so that whether a written instrument was delivered everybody knew that things were going south i think actually there's not a lot of information on the record  in this case i think it's not unreasonable to make that assumption but how bad it was or what need to be taken now i'm not sure you can make any assumptions about that at all all this record demonstrated was in january of two thousand and eight bank made some calls saying these these businesses are in trouble we're going to try to be do that the notes they were giving rise to all of this it was so bad that the banks said we're going to have to just go in and take over so you know i'm not sure how that cuts but i don't think you can make too much assumption regarding that but you know if you're going to look at the of the other half are elements that you have to look at one of the things of course was whether or became insolvent shortly after the transfer of that that's true and that the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred well you know really on this record the judgment was not taken against my clients want case for fraud in fact case fish to support a preliminary injunction and i would say that you know that that doesn't rise to that level he testified about the personal guarantees he identified the notes they were all for the court he described promissory notes that his attorney prepared for him talk about why this occurred and he testified about his attorney advising who needed to guarantee  these matters for his wife so she could continue to make payments and maintain the real estate which the auto dealerships that he had sold were for lease so that was the important reason why that that occurred he also described a transaction which is why flown in money to buy you women furniture and pictures from the plaintiff because once these dealerships were basically foreclosed on they took back all the property including the equipment and what happened was the salaries bought that from the plaintiff in fact for one hundred thousand dollars and the plate seeks to set that transaction aside as unusual circumstance because in the past he had barred money from his wife or businesses and his attorney had prepared notes which he subsequently paid off he managed various properties for his wife they were called wall street management  properties paris every properties and the several farms these are all rental properties or properties that he manages for his wife essentially what happened here was to try out for head before it the series of notes and transactions and mr savva riis testimony which actually stood are on contradicted he did have the right pay which it meant that in the mere preference of one creditor over another transfer to a relative but there is nothing that says you can't transfer to a relative for adequate consideration and piece things many of them occurred prior to judgment being taken to my client transfers on the grounds they were fraudulent i think factually counsel has stated things that aren't in the record and specifically the funds that we're talking about in this case are all the citation came up empty there's also testimony in this record that marc savard currently has no money available to pay this judgment so the the exercise of legal remedies both to obtain a judgment on the attempt or the allegation to set aside the fortunate transfer of certain assets of the along to mark or at least one marks name to his wife karen and in the pleadings in this case we don't ask for judgment we don't ask  that's the purpose for this case the  here in this court but when that judgment was appealed marc savard had an opportunity to file upon that would protect the judgment and if that bond was filed there would be no collection efforts off election think you can stand here and say i feel that so you can't collect when there's a process available that would that would prevent stan from collecting and and stop this whole fraudulent conveyance you from going on if you post the phone the other he doesn't have to go to trial on the merits and when he has to show there's a fair question as to his rights and that the status quo he's preserved pending the final outcome of the case and i was mixing the court that there is an adequate basis for just those to record you can see that he admits he transferred this money to his wife and see he admits he's insolvent you can see all those things and specifically he says he did all the same after he knew found that those should be scrutinized and in this case it's it raises questions when you transfer significant assets you like this where you're doing that to avoid judgments and i believe that if you look at all those facts  is anymore because if you can see from the settlements the record some of the accounts specifically identified in the injunction are not empty there's no money in it so if the two point two million dollars that conveyance case like this we'll never catch up with the money because who knows where to go we can't sue karen directly we have to sue moore and and get the conveyance set aside and if we get this one done that we got to find the money again set of the side and continue on us i think it's reasonable for just those to say you know we've got suspicion of fraudulent conveyances we've got allegations from the basis of the minimum and so we need an injunction to preserve the stat and he probably did and if that's the case and that comes out through the discovery process that in fact he did get money from his wife instead of just signing guarantees on leases that are year old and signing notes for money is already his that he doesn't have a legal right to pursue his judgment the client chose not to file a bond for whatever reason and so sure of it can go after it legally what i'm saying is that basically they have just emptied bank reduced it to cash and sent the cayman islands for example you know when you look at the various cases it talked about fraudulent conveyance one of the things the courts when they discuss those i'm talking about is is it a secret thing that they've done this in collusion that's that's a big deal through the courts and on this record how none of this was done in secrecy or collusion and another thing the courts to take into consideration when they were talking about this court when it rendered the das decision said well have you liquidated everything turned it into cash and then given the cash away perspective down or whatever and that's really not the kind of case that they were valuable and damned if you don't you sure plumeri injunction there will be damage without recourse and that's really not what we're talking about here the trial court really focused party is financially irresponsible but really when you take a look at the fact pattern in the land in case what you find out is that that's really an exclusive and i'm from keen case because really what happened here was also agreed not to sell fireplace to anyone else having exclusive license if you will and not compete essentially and then what happened was he turned around and sold the land to a third party  the supreme court basically said all know you can't do that you cannot sue because the plaintiff couldn't sue third party he wasn't party to the contract so basically the supreme court concluded that the plaintiff there was in t all relief because the defendant and on had to be prevented from doing that which he had coveted not to do it's not the kind of case we're talking about here that's really in on compete and a license kind of case and so really if you look at that and that's the case of the trial more focused on said that supports what i'm doing here i would say when you look at this record overall on you'll find that we have our burden it's a high burden i agree that we've met our