aired by treating the question of who as a legal matter was the right party to litigate these claims as a question of article three constitutionals that nd the district court here by adopting a special rule for the application  d limitations so would it light most favorable to your client didn't limitations on the fraud claim ron before the suit was filed i or july of two thousand and sixteen so that claim is highly and she also has arguments that that fraud holds the remaining statutes of limitations as the underlying substantive claims so it would not be a pyrrhic victory at all your honor she constitutional minimum of are all three standing with respect to claims against her attacker and her contractual counterparty she's a savvy and a party to some agreement so she suffered injuries in fact caused by the defense conduct that  or no matter what the trustee decided to do it would be in her main interest litigating its claims and as the th circuit recognized in spain courts are not always consistent with how they refer to this question they analyze it sometimes in terms of and just like with digital out of your question before under will one thousand seven hundred and eighty three once the real party in interest to a case makes its decision the case proceeds as if it were had been commenced in the name of the real party and interest so only way that a debtor can show that she acted inadvertently or made a mistake was to show either that she didn't know the facts underlying legal claims not even necessarily whether she knew she had legal as but just the facts underlying cla disclosure and the nature of chapter seven bankruptcy it every single chapter seven bankruptcy a debtor will have a motive to conceal the claims because if a judgment is quite good that money will go to the debtor as opposed to the creditor and so we submit that that mechanical rule is inconsistent with what this court has required reports to you for a decade i just don't understand i just that the rule is sort of presumed from knowledge of a claim that th inadvertent i understand means it wasn't and if you had knowledge of the we assume the motive and so we can presume from knowledge of the claim that the nondisclosure was in bad faith but then you are right they are the courts below also said and we get to the knowledge if you knew about the facts and i'm just having trouble even wrap my mind around the idea that you know about a claim that you have made no steps to pursue that you believe is barred by a settlement  but you're but you're sort of you're going along you're ok with the primus she did have knowledge of this claim the problem is the part where they presume from that knowledge the bad faith rates you were accepting for the purposes of this appeal that she had knowledge of the claims does that mean what do you mean when you say that that she had knowledge of the claim so she reviewed guess criminal file in december two thousand and thirty and that that file led her to believe that the  thought these claims reasonably about mistakenly were barred by the settlement yeah that's if she knew only them and just literally don't understand what she was supposed to write down on the form if we credit her account i don't understand what it means to get a bankruptcy form and write down a bunch of lawsuits conceding that she had knowledge of her claim for these purposes yes for these purposes that she had knowledge of her claims she she's i gather what you're arguing for is some standard where even with knowledge there still has to be some element of deliber manifesting i'm givin it up this standard as this court has articulated for decades is bad just knowingly omitting something from the forms of bankruptcy knowing knowingly omitting something from the bankruptcy forms is simply not all of the potential costs of action that they may have when there are bankruptcy based on all the times that they've been injured regardless of whether or not they have a legal theory and the window to be on that list because the settlement precluded bringing a lawsuit so even if you are imagining  faith under the district courts rule where the only facts that matter is whether or not a debtor knew the facts underlying your legal claims there will inevitably be claims that are barred when a doctor just made a good  we submit that that's what happened here i are sort of viewed this case as two different lawsuits that she had the st was for the tort that she suffered settlement agreement and so the damages in the someone agreement case set aside would be what some woman would i have been able to obtain had i known that the facts that  think it changes the calculus at all she certainly has arguments that the fraud as it relates to some agreement would toll the underlying substantive cause of action wise that they basically which is a different cause of action than the underlying i i'm not sure i understand how someone told sasha limitations obviously you're not going to file suit if you believe you subtle but great that if you are induced by fraud then the prior inconsistent statement which here i guess would be the implied statement that she had no legal claims against the defendant hasn't been accepted in the prior proceeding and how did that happen here given that the bankruptcy court to reopen the case to consider those specifically argue whether or not these the st and nd new hampshire factors applied but that's certainly something that we think that the district more of consider going to be angry if we if we send this back i'm sorry you're asking us to remain a straight to the district court to do a totality of the circumstances analysis rather than relying on the presumption yes we were asking this court to clarify the legal rule and reject the presumption and we think that based on the undisputed facts in the record this court can and should hold that the defendants have not met their burden at this filed yet to still belong to the trustee but i could not find cases presuming bad faith from a failure to disclose a lawsuit that had not been filed that the debtor was saying it never occurred to me i could like a filing with the e e o c or something like that it just makes no sense to me that you would presume bad faith from a failure to disclose a lawsuit that has not been filed no steps being taken to explore it no filing of the c and why would you assume it's in bad faith as opposed to either telling the truth she didn't think she was going to bring a lawsuit or this person a lawyer or not looked at the forms and didn't see anything that said specifically you need to list even cases that haven't been filed the only thing i could find on the form actually asked for a keys number where you have to list your legal claim so it clearly doesn't contemplate at least expressly that you would list cases that haven't been filed yet it just seems like such a stretch to put aside the presumption as applied to an an existing legal claim but i'm just not getting kind of the common sense reason to presume bad faith from a failure to disclose a lawsuit that has not and file i in the district or look at the record as you just to be clear about your position assuming hypothetically i think they relied on this presumption do you agree that they should not have done their no no i agree i agree if you rely simply on the fact that it what she had knowledge and didn't violet and know whether fact i mean for instance what she said i just forgot which is a perfectly possible fact the court didn't rely on that the court relied on two facts one is a she knew of her kline and two she had a motive because she would have benefited by not disclosing the  she was some arm you know begging the words i just i don't think the record bears out that story and we're stuck with the facts before us i hear your concerns about what happens if there's a to a lawyer i know but that and this is my concern i'm not i'm not suggesting that you don't have to do it i'm suggesting that in this particular context when we're talking about on file legal claims that the hypothetical facts said judge  talking about seem especially likely to occur that a debtor might inadvertently not understand from this form i'm supposed to write down legal claims that don't exist that's an odd exercise it's not intuitive that you would think i better start writing down lawsuits i have not filed and i don't see anything on the form that would tell you clearly you should do that is what i am i'm not suggesting you don't have to do it i'm suggesting there may be a lot of mistakes in this context and that we should not be quick to adopt a wall in this context that turns those mistakes into a judicial astolfo problem that lets potentially wrongdoing rd parties off the hook just because someone didn't constitutional standing that therefore they have waived seem to me the whole fact that they are bringing the case in the state and tend not to waive such a claim which would throw out a court so it seems to me you'd have to have a pretty clear she didn't have stand that point but the question then is when she did get stand in the bankruptcy trustee out and said i'm no longer interested it is her claim and the question is now why doesn't she  that standing defense if it is article three standing and if we reject that we don't have to go into the rest stop i would think i think you're probably right and it a day but the one point i wanted to that she needed to refile a complaint when she regains standing there should have been the proper party to bring the case court never granted st day to work out her issues with the bankruptcy or oh it it doesn't necessarily need to be formalized it just nothing's happening while the person goes about getting the band admin of the claim and that is indeed what she did her debts continued to pile up and then she filed for bankruptcy and when she fell for bankruptcy sat on the claims for another year supposed would of course cried when she amended her bankruptcy yes add the what do you take from the fact that she attributed fifty thousand dollars to the are you like your are there's no indication in the record or any explanation for why there's some sort of discrepancy but the record is clear at schedule bankruptcy schedule to identify the asset as a fifty thousand dollars asset the motive there clearly is not to give her creditors value but to preserve them yourself maybe to encourage the