tennessee by the entirety of the state and for the tenants voluntarily severed the estate to provide sons to the non bankruptcy filing spouse now the court would be allowing this to happen and allow the creditors in to exist when what is going on here is entirely outside the traditional parameters of ten c by the be able to type of assets that would are assets that are in but the church where the chattel is in body name an instrument and an instrument is something of transfer or convenience  when you're talking about money are accounts you're saying these types of tendencies are not applicable i do not think they fit and the reason why it's for all four of these items that i described it's because of the creditor shield if we're only talking about a joint tenancy with right of survivorship these issues are less important if not wholly owned port the joint one of the four then the creditor shield falls and the assets in the fidelity account are available to the bankruptcy trustee and then to the creditors of use that now of course i think all four fall in my client homestead for the family that's not the issue here the tennessee by the entirety status of the home of the better and the spouse has not been challenged now but under the wyoming statutes seems to me they have really see if there's a case that says you can do the tenancy by entirety in any time house but not when it's a shield in a bankruptcy in the case of the ten intangible written personal property the child was supposed to be embodied in an instrument the tenancy by the entireties created from the instrument itself that's why i don't mean case law the types of schildt when they don't fit within it well yeah where i said is why does this matter it has to be something special because you're giving these joint assets a shield an absolute shield from creditors now number two the claims tendency by the entirety assets are held within the vehicle of the civility camp and this vehicle for us the definition of instrument and it talks there about something like a contract or other similar riding with a contractor and specific referent no i don't because i don't think this is an instrument of convenience or transfer it's an accounting application but also what it is is the clear and unambiguous language of the terms daughter is a hypothetical no i understand i just wanted to make sure i understood the terms of the hypothetical before i respond then in that situation the power of attorney gives you the power to act but it does not and it's w fidelity or with somebody else and you can act for them so then yes maybe in that situation there would be consent but i still think you have to go through consent because of one x for their own individual interests i don't think that that is consistent with tenancy by the entire well what's different about my hypothetical substantively and what actually happened because you could reconcile something that there was an instrument of conveyance your st argue that you could reconcile the existence of this term in the fidelity account agreement with the existence of a tendency by the entirety because the assumption of fidelity was that mister crow his lifetime could withdraw funds unilaterally but in this part of the briefing in this case there's only one case side where tennessee by the entirety assets were helped through a vehicle that was incompatible with holding assets like tennessee by the entirety that's  claims tenancy by the entirety assets were held in trust but the trust terms provided for individual alienation the what wife had the power the husband was in bankruptcy the court found that was incompatible with i can't think of one at the moment your honor the point is this is this was an account application and so i got the facts for us here and it just didn't do it because this is a blatant attempt to try to avoid creditors through it just writing tenancy b entirety on an account application when the account itself says we're going to give it to one person if they want to withdraw it and nothing you can do about it so we looked in the same bankruptcy court found the bankruptcy judge found that there was an intent to you know create create this type of tenancy you what would we do about that that shows that mister mister know it shows the him to get your run i'm sorry did mean interrupt you know your honor everybody would like to be able to shield all of their assets from creditors so the intent to shield it is of course the issue is can you and can you under these situations it makes sense that you have to do something more to have a creditor shield in the few states where this is still recognised it's a powerful tool the predator shield makes no sense not reasonable to extend the other another issue and i'm into found to be in payment of joint debt yes but the thing is it wasn't payment of a joint get it is so absolutely clearly erroneous to say that it was payment of a joint debt there is a note the note is payable the the ones who gave the money as an entity margin investment partners the ones who are supposed to pay it are three dollars trusts and a foundation and to save the an obligation of the getter and his spouse just not within it does not benefit the estate it is not it is just a personal slush fund that's not being used for the tenancy misess crowe said i don't know what happened to them basically i just ok that's so it's not for their benefit this is totally self dealing in their powers of attorney gave them the right to act for the tendency for the people for this tendency when didn't give them the right to just do everything that they wanted  even though we're supposed to provide the rights at the time of d the at the time of the filing of the petition and saying that but the death of mister crowe changed it well this was a lot there was a voluntary joint pleasure to speak on behalf of ability carolan crow this morning initially given the current procedural posture of this case there is simply no final order  the context of an exemption ruling a final order must still be a final order and in this particular situation when the court said i'm granting the i'm recognizing the tendency by the entirety but the determination of the extent of that depends upon whether or not there is joint deb clearly we didn't get to a final or nd thing i'd point out in response to your question your honor is go back and look at the record here you'll see that the bankruptcy courts amended memorandum decision on that exemption issue was entered on june th the notice of appeal to the bankruptcy appellate panel wasn't filed for another two months that was after the court ruled on the turnover issue so there's a problem in the record here if indeed the ruling on the exemption is a final order they missed their appeal deadline they had fourteen days from june th we've filed a copy of judge parker's ruling on summary judgment to give the court a better opportunity to analyze that situation which you can see those that she granted my client motion for summary judgment on the entitlement issue she denied the trustees motion but she also reserved some issues for trial and then out of the abundance of caution isn't that isn't that a final determination and i know you've talked about as well i guess ranting to repeal but if we ignore that argument and move on and say this is why everybody's been arguing about for years can we circumstances under which the lack of fidelity can be cured based on those decision that requires one of two things either a final order from the bankruptcy court which we don't have or a rule fifty four certification which we don't have and so your honor i think that yes there are circumstances under which we could get to finale and this court would have jurisdiction but under the peculiar circumstances of this case where the summary judgment ruling was in her and them state and we didn't get to rules rule fifty four i don't think that we have a sufficient sure and i am a little puzzled i mean you're you're representing misess krown right correct wouldn't you want this issue resolved ten seasons the entirety and whether or not she has any rights to these funds and if so what those rights are your honor i'd love to have this issue resolved but let's talk about the totality of the procedural situation here we're now litigating the same issue in bankruptcy court waiting for a final decision  the trustee has expressed his intent to appeal that ruling and so my preference your honor is just that this be decided but but not in a piecemeal fashion and that's what bullard tells us not to do we've been up and down through the appellate courts here and the final order rule is designed to give us one appeal in which all of these issues will be resolved and instead in this case your honor what's happened is that we've been whipsawed i'm down in the bankruptcy court litigating the very issue at least one of them that's been presented on appeal so for those reasons maybe we should remain and with directions to enter a room fifty for me certification i would be happy with that your honor i would i would like this to come back and be result and i would like i think that gives the parties to the ability to fashion the manner in which this comes up on appeal so that all of these issues get decided in a single appeal by single panel and i think that's to everyone's be it conclusion on the on this issue we're we're still waiting for a final order from the bankruptcy court interlocutory nature of the appeal that was before the bankruptcy appellate panel was a finalized if you will as prescribed under tri valley distributing we don't have a final order or rule fifty four b certification those are the three considerations and i think under those circumstances we simply don't have a pill jurisdiction that doesn't mean we won't eventually have it that doesn't mean that all the parties don't desire it resolution but it needs to come up properly and it needs to come up in a single a recognition of the biblical concept of the belief that when spouses are joined ready in marriage they become one it unified entity plus this attack by radiance on this one kill marriage concept really is a public policy type situation and as i said i believe that this is best directed this this concern would be to seeing if one in legislature wanted to adopt this predator she'll problem that  definition tenancy by the entirety just as you pointed out is a marital union acts as one and by definition the count agreement specifies that to the contrary each can unilaterally deplete  to the courts both in wyoming and others states that deal with tenants by the entirety of this it's the idea that somehow determines the the ownership has been suburb by the ability to write a check or whatever and this was st i think dealt with by the war terry and company versus hansen decision and then much more recently in two thousand eight hundred the lucy versus well then you'll see that our unless there is some sort of voluntary agreement start out the wyoming statute that talks about tenants by the entirety incorporates not just real property but personal property so it's a very broad concept and personal property is one of those things that may require that there be the ability to alienate certain parts of it or whatever and so pro or practical stamp or one of the owners should be able to go ahead and let's say write checks and the presumption under these these various cases is that the other spouse was agreeing to it that is that there was consent think that's why we brought up the fact that the turnover action that is an exclusive right of the trustee or debtor in possession so therefore radians has no standing to even bring the turnover they i think the trustee recognized that in fact this is not a final order that's why they did not that's why the trustee and his counsel did not appeal the buyout order please remember that if you look at the procedural mechanism on us the bath st den appeal decision that comes before this court i think i see nothing that gives this court the ability to that that's not a final order whereas the back can take on interlock a tory orders allow us for fun oh if we could look at this case what do you think is left for us to address very important is the extent of the exemption in other words bankruptcy whichever terminology and era you grew up in he is deceased and now we have as i understand it the splitting up a fund as though we were talking about common tenants in common i'm trying to i'm trying to sort out where we are and what we have now right i don't want to talk about tenancy in the tyrant me but i think that boat is sort of sailed because we have the realities of mister croes death and we have subsequent orders by a couple of courts so where are we now who's got the money and who wants why that's what  that the one thing i want to make sure that it is understood by the nature of your question is the fact that st off we are we deal with exemptions as they were fatal or claim on the date of filing and so to be parking about post trisha issues as they affect the exemption guess by the bankruptcy court as to whether there aren't joint debts that she could be liable for is that right that's exactly right  know people are shaking their heads now ok so the so we have the exemption determined we don't have the full extent of it to term and that's where the fifty four  determination really i disagree with as a remedy because we still don't know the fall so raised money was left for the court to determine the bankruptcy court left as my understanding is it is the extent of the tenants by the entirety of in other words as you put it are there joint debts that might somehow be able to be utilized to or subtract from the exempt amounts ok and as i understand it if that were true wouldn't that be something the trustee in bankruptcy would be interested in pursuing he would i believe he would be he is pursuing that your honor that's what it is ok to the issue on the exemption is done with i can't do anything back in bankruptcy court to deal with the fact that the groups the court has said the tendency by the entirety exemption applies the only way to  decide it is here on a mill now and i believe that it is more than funny you know this is an exemption that has been finally determined and just how much out of that exempt money you ma that may still be an issue but the exemption itself that's absolutely final with respect also mister collins issued that well maybe you know we didn't appeal and lost her appeal after the bankruptcy courts st opinion on absolutely made it final so there's no missing on our parts of our appeal with respect to the other issues also mister winship mentioned that we don't have any standing to assert on the turnover order we joined i know all recognition from where it was before and finally i would just say in closing behind all of the judges in your virtual courtroom as recent as the soul of all law it is simply not reasonable to deny this these funds to the bankruptcy estate and creditors when all of these flaws exist with respect to the tenancy by the entirety property thank you else all your time's expired appreciate the