peck whenever you're ready you know he said priority so that's why i am pursuing that what was still left to resolve as to the amount that any particular party as to whether any particular party would be entitled to something but the problem that case was there concerns us is we have said at times and places in cases like todd shipyards that you need a full resolution of liability and you can deal with damages separately but you can come up on f you made a significant enough determination on liability and it sounds like from what you're talking about that's consistent with that case for i think it's consistent with just much a priority didn't go to the amounts of all your time we don't have that here in this case we do  go to whether the they asked for summary judgment for recognition in force me into the living their mortgage we represent the vessel asked of the vessel that liability was set as that mortgage was recognize that was a final determination of the fence we had the defense was it's not of it's not of while the mortgage therefore the vessel is not liable for that similar to the other kings get a case not cited which is eight fifteen f second nine hundred twenty cert third circuit observe the case we're going to kids that there were people from could closely determine some merits of a claim or defense so it wasn't it determined the merits of our defense that's the important thing our defense was cut off like to sarah maka that effect really that ended the case because after the court ruled the bank moved four and a lack of tory sale of the vessel and asked to quite a bit it was all over with we fortunately when you would when there won't be enough any effect of appeal that's what we have here what was left to decide in this case well there's left of these decided words applies to in persona defendants the court did not decide the amount of that as to the other three vessels involved in the case there was issues of prescription they weren't decided but asked a little alf with this vessel it was decided there's a but they asked for a recognition  foursome of the pride of their mortgage and that was decided it's all over with they're going to go to unlock a door sale and go go in force that mortgage and i can't stop it there it's a law the case the court decided there's a vile valid mortgage with priority against this vessel and they want to credit the amount of their more engine and we can't contest that and that's why there has been a final determination of the rights of the abilities i understand why the court ask about this it's always important to look at these technically procedural this is a subset of really this court and it's so important the court issued a stapler so important no one it's a case of first impression that we put forth a substandard issue that there's a ripple harm to us in public been conclusively determine on the merits there's nothing else as to us other than ordering for sale that there are other issues for other defendants and other vessels but the case law says that's ok for a lot of people as it doesn't pledge the debt under losing a law you have a clever mortgage or pledge the note that didn't happen but the banks in the box here because a bank says oh just look at the ship more you jack and we meet the requirements you don't look there's no gaps here but then it has this problem because the note in that the collateral morey's note the note there is not a real know it's a fictitious but in the lucy it it's made up no there was no debt at the time and they're trying to use a collateral channel mortgage they have to look at state law but their problem state law is that's contrary to custom fuels and the new gene case was different because there was a maximum out and it was a different note here there's a specific made up tick tish's note that talks about for evidence by the  exist where they're authorized by law so no i will stand up probably use that all form but the problem here the real problem here is that the requirement that ship mortgage at records that you state the amount of the obligation director contingent that is secured or may be secured by that mortgage there was no obligation here it's nothing there is no actual debt and it certainly doesn't were necessaries or supplies provided in the losing of supreme court and diamond services said only deal with real property so there is no direct or indirect contention obligation screwed by this preferred purported mortgage it says it has a specific debt evidenc in paragraph twelve stuff that's made up there's no reference to maximum out there's no reference these mortgages also say for future advances i do ship finance he puts x amount future fans it doesn't say that it just says on this specific note and we know th well just follow the rick record ation requirements that doesn't matter whether the mortgage is valid or not the problem is you can have a cocktail napkin a one page document just stating those requirements putting them out call a mortgage and buy her decision that's all you need well that's like the u c c one i went to the u c c requires you to have a granny clause in the security agreement and the mortgage should have at least a granny clause and you have to look the state law something you have to mortgage you have to have some language in there to have an actual morning but the way she way they read it the district court is just follow requirements that's good enough and that would wreak havoc with marine finance in the united states because we all look to the u again the bank says oh well look the state law you want to have uniformity but what's that you see see it's uniform commercial code and in the interpol decision i believe the ninth circuit said that the u c c is like the federal  salty involves a vessel it is not maritime contract so unless it's preferred mortgage or the ship boring jack they're out of luck and that's why this is important that's why this goes to substance that's why this is an interlocutory peel the falls in twelve ninety two eighty three because it deals with the substance of our defense in a very i so the new energy was discussed decided wrong it violated it went against custom fuels case and was looked at all the long to look to see of delivery of mortgages we would stake will offer adequate consideration for self help remedies there was rip the left and in a locker bill would be appropriate and that's a fair question i think the answer is in the sarah market case in that instance there was a sale and that effectively terminate the vessel owner's rights and the vessel were not  that case actually doesn't stand for what vessel owners propose it does it actually shows that we're premature in this instance because we haven't gotten to the sale price additionally the court has to resolve the person because only in that instance is this in a forcible shit mortgage says a relates raised by the bank on appeal at the district court level after that and if there's a final judgment that point will be entitled to enforce the judgment by selling the vessels and the reality judges what it was trying to take that decision has not been rendered by the district court because one of the other things that was not addressed i think in the opening presentation is rightness and in fact i think the argument that's been presented to da is a little different in fact a lot different than what was in the opening and the opening brief by appellants they raised the single issue of whether in their in their terms whether state law governs the validity of a shit but they're not part of the record there is the mortgages are simply not part of the appellate record yet the vessel owners are now trying to cite to them to argue that they are invalid under louisiana law the just to judge have presented this question oh well there's a real g which is a separate independent reason why this court doesn't have jurisdiction what the way that this appeal has been presented is that under state law their argument is that louisiana law abolished and the ability abolished a collateral mortgage package being used to secure it so it's a complete circle it gets you back to a future contingent event that may never happen i e the district court may ultimately what we've done is improper but then they're asking to send it back down to the different court and have the district court make that i try to terminations which is not been met it's a completely circular presentation of the moving on that now to in that case the supreme court said that the suit mortgage like granted exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts to enforce the lein of for mortgage it cannot be tested by extrinsic criteria it's intended to encourage investment in the shipping industry providing greater security and it's intended to give greater confidence to lenders if a vessel meets the simple conditions of the ship more of what the vessel is are trying to do here is add an additional it but to amend it and the supreme court made it very clear in that case they're no more free to amend the should mortgage act and they are to reduce the requirement the court left extensively about the history purpose of the ship more than shocked to find that state law could not be applied where would undermine the uniformity of the ship mortgage at and its purpose of making sure that the mortgage jack may mean how what's the role of state law in your presentation today and that's a that's a very good question judge it does have a role but the role is limited you start with the premise that the shit mortgage act was passed to govern exclusively shit mortgages if there is a gap in state law as well as bankruptcy law and federal law can be looked at as a supplement or as guidance as long as the law of the state does not undermine the purpose rendering security interest and vessels invalid when the settled stated intention of the parties is to lend money for marine purpose and in turn in exchange for security interest of it's clearly undisputed in this case act actually says the word valid multiple times it says it has to be filed to be it says that in order to be valid has to be followed in substantial compliance with the ship moment that must identify the vessel state the name and address of each part of the mortgage state the amount of direct or contingent obligations state the interest of the grant or more ensure safety interest mortgage and be signed an acknowledged the whole intent and purpose of the statutes to make it simple easy  marine financing to assume current investment and to make sure the security interests are recognized and vessels what they're trying to do is not an additional layer this as at the very beginning of the analysis you have to look to see whether any particular mortgage complies with state law that's not in the statute and adding that additional element is and is an amount to amending the statute but also adding an overriding obligation that then requires the mortgage then in the presentation this morning about cases that have applied state law and i think it's important to look at the actual facts of those cases to show why they don't support the broad sweeping contention that state law somehow determines the validity of  priority as it relates to other liens and they said look this is a sham set up and as a result it needs to be equitably subordinated to other living holders because of the weight of the mortgage and that's not what we have we have a clear intent of the as to whether the bank complied with the ship mortgage act there has been argument now an oral argument that we didn't somehow comply with certain requirements but that's simply either been waived or not the case the other cases that have been cited two are generally district court cases from other jurisdictions one case i think that has been relied on extensively is the bergen just which is a district court case from connecticut n case the court looked to state law for to supplement the the shit mortgage act with respect to the issue of consideration in that case it was a sham mortgage owner granted a mortgage to his mother and there was testimony in the record that he did it to protect himself so that that would then have priority over other liens the court would allow that they look to state law as guidance to furthe purposes of the ship mortgage if the vessel owners are right that somehow state law can be looked at to hear their argument if they're right and valid is to shoot more and she's in this case which cannot for the purpose  with some of your opponent starts telling describing what's in your brief my briefs are pretty clear of the issues presented and and we raised a fictitious note and the whole issue about there not being a real obligation there so to say that mortgage don't look at state law well the school is a good collateral mortgage you know this note we have over here is really a clever mortgage note and you look at state law and it's really affected that's their problem their real problem here that that's not a real note it does not state the amount of the obligation there is no obligation that's why that's their problem right there so they have to reach back to state law they said state law should not apply they have to have state law here they have to have state law to turn this fictitious no obligation diamond services says there's no obligations just made up into an obligation here so they have a real contradiction they're now looking at twelve money too they talked about the prescription issues the other vessels we have appealed the the issue on the other vessels and mortgages on the vessels were only appealing the one on the little out where there's a final determination there's a valid mortgage and you know what's next they have a motion for merits of our defense and that that wasn't a valid mortgage on the ship morici act it wasn't valid using state law to fill in the gaps and that is not a theoretical issue i mean the rightness thing because this is these are issues of law rightness goes e tory sale that we will suffer irreparable harm based on the useless judgment rule so on rightness this is a very right now we also asked for papers about you can remand it or you can take a not next step in this court in our reply brief we said in this court can decide in rule that it's not a valid morning we don't have to go back to district court in our papers we asked for this court to make that ruling so there's nothing nothing circular here again they characterize our law to fill in the gaps that can wreak havoc in the national marine finance arena because we constantly have to look to the u c c to fill in these gaps we have to look to law to have a granting clause there's no greeting clause again that you get a for a commercial code off these recording requirements and and the coast guard will accept it there's a real need for to fill the gaps as custom fields said in gilmore and flat have common in the leading commentator that that ship more jack has tremendous gaps and is far from perfect so we practitioners in the national vessel financing field have to look to other areas the law such as the u c c to fill in the gaps so confidence would be would be  deficiency judgment of course the ship mortgage act is directly on point thank you both and we will