a very we want to trace the logic of the argued because the fact is that in this case the fact of the beneficiaries doesn't it was used not taken into consideration by the court in making its ruling that interest right to earn interest in the life of the new isn't as one benefit upon the death of the new it however then it becomes more like a life insurance policy and there is a benefit paid out on the death of the new agent and that also the beneficiary now in this by the contracting parties and he's he is a party to that agreement as well on the substance of the benefits and so therefore his right under puerto rico law in the same contract is invalidated by what the is a potential right not to pay him but too bad you're paid him so what's the inconsistent obligation on you you have to return the premium you can do that and don't have to pay him anymore so i don't get why there's an inconsistent yes so the court says that you you raise that point that if you're obligated to return the premiums to the on the merits here you lose on the merits here because your client was so negligent sloppy in the way that it handled the issuance of these policies and that would so weaken any attempt to get  automatically means that i get to issue some reject in favor of and so that's another underlying issue here with respect to the rule one thousand question that was on the table what we want to point out is that again these are three contracting parties and the propriety of the situation by my client to pay out the benefits on these valid as a as a procedural matter in the alternative so you don't have to return it really i'm right that the main thing you don't want to do is return the premiums very well the main thing is we don't want to have to do one without the other in the alternative we have to pay the premiums and we have to wait until the animal geishas should not be triggered until somebody pieces back whether it be actually that could have been done if the brother had been in the case as it so now they say well you've got to give us back the premiums because what we bought was avoid saying yes if your position is the people who bought that think got the benefit because this other guy got paid why wouldn't you just go after them what who else need to be in the suit you can just say no look if you're going to get the premiums back then you better pay us whatever benefit you got out of this deal why do you care about the brother who cares if the money comes from him as long is your position that in a case like that you could have gotten the full pay out of the purchased and now come to the court and say by the way that was rather than themselves but the logic of your position seems to be that if you want to wreck if the insurance company wants to recover the payout it made that's a separate action and the person who purchased you know what he's entitled to the premiums in the interim insurer being far too prompt in making payments to the beneficiary  yes no you are and just just to complete the point and then the issue of the proper issuance of the policies could have been litigated the way it was  that if it turned out that the policies were normal and void in the preview should be returned i don't know there could be any argument now that the money should be paid out to the to the beneficiary which would eliminate that possible scenario we're insurance company has returned the premiums but they're still unhooked just on what the beneficiary that just couldn't play out well your if you really agree with the proposition that this is a sort of  the insurer having no reason to believe it's doing anything other than what the person already wrote what is doing exactly what the purchaser does seem to want makes the payout and then years later after everything's been paid out all rule policies which is life insurance policies and pensions that are tied to the life of the beneficiary like it or the life of one of the spouses are as an exception very personal and therefore do not form part of the partnership and do not require the permission of the other spouse there is a theory put forward by plaintiffs in their brief as apple e's that is that somehow the character changes from conjugal spousal property to personal property on the horse that is not correct the reasoning of the court specifically said we have established that is necessary to it some from that classification certain goods with respect to the signatures we just want to point out again the remedy there is no provision of the puerto rico insurance code that requires original signatures it just requires writing it was writing the all the steel about the ownership status is not at the of the it would be as a whole simply to the portion dealing with ownership and whether or not that would have been relevant perhaps to benefit screen the lifetime of the newton to those benefits never came into play