representations in her means test calculations that she paid the st mortgage on a property that she also said was mr adams separate property and that she also paid monthly mortgage payments  on a nd date of trust which she both of which she admitted she never did and in the nd it was a false state of trust that mr adams it created and those false statements remain as i speak today as false statements in her schedules she is defiantly refused to amend her schedules her best explanation you know we're not are false statements and they continue to be false statements she made them and then the question is whether she had an obligation to amend or schedules we know that she has refused to do that were they material and if you took those statements out those figures out of the means test which she have had a positive disposable income yes and then those false statements when viewed in the context of her other false statements such as her schedule h code the other statement in which she simply checks the box if there are no others remind me before we go too far what does her mental state have to be when she makes up also  misunderstood the means test calculations which the instructions of which are clear enough to impart the knowledge that you can only put numbers in those boxes if you own the property you've got it's got to be a property that you own mrs adams knew she didn't own because this is just a factual question are we just talking about whether the bankruptcy court made  or a factor we're talking about something else well we are talking about something else that one of our other criticisms is that the bankruptcy court didn't provide sufficient factual findings without be a factual question well i guess right respectfully disagree i guess you would have to look at the document itself and draw the conclusion i think it's legal but what i'm trying to when i'm trying to hone in on here is we need to be convinced that the judge made a mistake in not that not that you had a great story but that the judge made a mistake and what i guess i'm trying to figure out is what part of that isn't an assessment of the facts because an assessment of the facts and she's got to be clearly in error and her credibility assessments are entitled to the highest efforts so that's so so how do we get off if you need us to get off the factual plane here how do you want good for you that we start we start all over again right but the factual questions we have to we have to give her a lot of deference well so so i'm just if you're going to tell me there's clear air have at it and if you're right you know when but that's a factual question the question is where are the facts and where's the law here that's my question because well i mean here's here's what i'm sensing you had this long pretrial stipulation you had all these facts you wanted the court to worry about what the court says at the end they as luck i just don't find the right explanations were credible for the way she filled out her schedules that's impossible as impossible to reach that conclusion because the only evidence under the  calculations what which was that she a didn't own the property to even fill in those blanks b she never made any of those payments and c with regard to the nd false chase hate to argue facts with me to see if i'm right about something was not her testimony whether you found a credible or not that she didn't really get the whole chase one issue until much later are you saying something more little different from that i think i'm saying something different i have a checkbook out she never made it happen jim guy fame thank you ok and so if you never make a payment you can't fill in those blanks and those blanks are critical but didn't her attorney also testify that for the chase one he fill that out by basically averaging out the balloon payment over a period of months and putting that number in there wasn't a summary of what he said on that issue in the sense in a nutshell yes right so that but that was his decision right to do it that way not the way i read her stipulations because she's also testified that she got the blank forms from mr coming she enlisted some assistance from her husband with that she was the one who completed all of the forms and gave them back to mr calming so then we're left with this question which the trial of bankruptcy court didn't resolve which one of these two contradictory explanations for how the schedules got filled out was the right one and i don't think you can come to the conclusion that in the face of these two contradictory explanations that mrs adams testified credibly or particularly with regard to the serious one or the  what we have here is the judge makes this this ultimate finding that that once you filled out the schedules even though they contain mistakes even though they contain material mistakes that she still wasn't doing so with the requisite intent such evidence that she ever made those payments if you fire reid on a schedule i guess i do i think i see that is a fairly high standard kind of a factual question question yet because what you're basically saying is no even if i was wrong and that mrs adams could somehow pretend to be confused by the very clear instructions in box forty two the means test calculations  a time came when she knew that those representations were false and so the question arises did she have a duty to amend or schedules at that time we could pick up a number of times by which mrs adams can be said to have had that knowledge and at least at the latest when the joint pretrial  her duty but even in that joint pretrial stipulation or briefs a trial here again i say that she defiantly said i don't have to it's not material it won't do any good with the complaint in the told the six motion they file a motion for relief from the automatic stay which they didn't have to file as to my client because there was no stay in effect as to my client there was no  and they proceeded which the court granted although there was no order entered which is not problematic but there was no werner but they come and tell the court that you have to abstain and there are non parties in this case which are non debtors in this case which we don't have jurisdiction over so i add celerity jurisdiction is never raised or argued as defense to the twelve the think the court properly granted the twelve the six motion without leave to amend and and there's no there's no problem with that or of the court order firm that order secondly i don't think that this court has jurisdiction over mr adams in that there was no timely appeal filed at the time that the twelve the six motion was are all the prior orders subsumed in the final judgment don't you just appeal from the final judgment then everything's fair game at that point while not necessarily are because you have the name in your notice of appeal the judgment and the judgment in this case is to the nd amended complaint which mr adams was not a party and you have to name him and as a person aggrieved or to be the order to be appealed from that wasn't done even this amended notice of appeal says nothing about mr adams it does attach a copy of the order but that's well past the fact and this is not a situation where we're simply changing the language in our notice of appeal or adding a new parting past the deadline to file an appeal and it's jurisdictional and the court in my view really has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal that that judgment was finally finally are on are usually a stop they came and jumped up and down and said we need to go back to state court so we can the judge who is a former bankruptcy trustee herself didn't make any sufficient findings to give the plaintiffs in this case any collateral estoppel relief they got a judgment and they asked to go back and get a judgment they live in gated and state court to verdict they got a judgment they didn't like the judgment and now they want the bankruptcy court to  a an advisory opinion as to whether he gets the benefit of five hundred and twenty four which wasn't ripe and wasn't properly before the court and she correctly said look if he tries to abuse the bankruptcy code come back and see me and will address that at the time but it certainly was not right and she had no jurisdiction over him and he clearly objected to jurisdiction and was not properly before the bankruptcy court and he's not with respect to some of the arguments that were made by counsel specifically with respect to the means test it in that is i believe though i couldn't find it in the pages that the means test states what counsel excuse me the debtor's counsel and i didn't prepare the petition or anything like that i was just involved in the litigation i believe the box the mean test instructs secure debts to be divided up into equal payments whether or not the payments have been made i believe it speaks of the obligation and again i could be incorrect about that but the reason i bring it up whether i'm right or wrong is it's an issue that you know as i said there's been a lack of precision throughout the case some of which judge power was absolutely you know fine with as you can see from the excerpts we had and accelerate and i want to be precise now that i've complained about a lack perception the part of the trial is bifurcated in a way you know changed at the last minute testimony sums taken out of order i believe to accommodate a witness none of this wrong but i but i am saying is i'd like to encourage the court to make sure we use the same procedure in that should be applied as opposed to what seen some of the arguments i want to take a step back well what i'd like to say it guarding the standards one it's clearly erroneous it seems you know we're not arguing facts candidly i came up with this in the car over here and then walking across the street i realized must have heard one hundred times but ockham's razor tells us the most simple explanation is usually the right one where i would argue or ask the court to consider is that judge bauer did take  she believed them her she consulted with her attorney he believed them and they all they did have no knowledge of fraud when taking those facts and making those schedules the judge makes the specific finding the witness was credible and obviously the court knows they weren't there to make the the same findings in with the clearly erroneous standard and i obviously happen to believe it's right anyway but i certainly even if i disagreed i certainly don't believe it rises to clearly erroneous and that excuse me that's the standard we're talking about you know with respect to i believe he counsel raise a point about the admissions and those were clear air i just play out there was there's no case that i found that says if you know certain i don't even say missions that credibility passes the clip you know i've never seen a court reversed the decision when a judge made a credibility finding and i believe judge fair is actually asked another question which was really important which was isn't there a knowledge components he's my throat isn't there a knowledge component that needs to be shown so yeah we have a four page opinion it was as you know i don't know why she believes her husband what she does you know and that was credible so there's nothing which shows the knowingly intent unless we bury somewhere deeply into objection to exemptions and i'm a little worried that might a kind of fall by the wayside here because what seems to have happened is there was a nd time there was an amended complaint and the judge ruled quickly that the objection was quote just to a close quote ok and although that appears to have disposed of the matter it came up again at trial and the judge determined that there was no evidence presented with respect to the exemptions so we're a little unclear what the procedural status of that was from time to time she seems to have ruled as a matter of law without a whole lot of findings as to why the objection would have been too late and at the same time without anything further she seems to have faulted the plaintiff for not producing any evidence at a trial where maybe they weren't expecting they would have to so we're not finding a whole lot of findings one way or the other on that do you do you see this differently  i know this isn't the biggest part of the case but i think about it's got a we've got to dispose of it too heavy and truthfully your honor the exemptions were around one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in retirement and that's about two hundred and twelve thousand dollars thank you you know  substitute into the case of ok on the nd ok but it just from what we can tell there there don't seem to be any findings in support of the proposition that the objection was too late and we really weren't sure what to make of the observation of the end of the trial that while nobody gave us any evidence about this from the point of short of and when i were at the point of i'm not sure what would have been expected from me at that point so we're just trying to figure out what do we do with that i've made a couple comments number one i think i believe though i'm not sure i think i pointed this out my brief if you look at simply put the amount of the objection excuse me the amount you know one hundred thousand dollars compared with the median income of orange county assuming she wants to retire there well i mean a judge can make those finding spoke but i think somebody needs to i mean i can we can't do it right so i do circuits then i disagree that i think you can take judicial notice that  congress had determined this is the media excuse me i believe it's the as determined and bankruptcy code incorporates this is the median income in the area but judicial notice is a former fact finding and i don't think we've got to do ok i think there is one other i might have more no i'm sorry just st yes a question about whether the omission was material there was there was no evidence of that and i believe that's important that there was no evidence of that you can't just say well we take out this debt she doesn't pass the means test you have to again show in multiple places do we know that if you took that debt out with the remaining debts be big business debts that she was in possible it's a  question thirteen seconds i will thank you very i think you counsel you have that three minutes and twenty four seconds i promised you for rebuttal with regard to mr adams remarks or remarks made on his behalf the concept on which the bankruptcy court i'm sorry principle on which the bankruptcy court made its decision was that there it had no jurisdiction we contend the bankruptcy court erred because it never evaluated the circumstances under the related jurisdiction principle that we think is apply should of about apply to the circumstance that isn't a real problem there that even the bankruptcy court may have jurisdiction to sue mr no i agree with that the damages were an issue and the related jurisdiction could have covered a damage action that has been a state court action or me had there been a state court action on damage yes so the wouldn't have that wouldn't be there had been i forget the timing of it we were we ultimately obtain a judgment against mr adams i think that was done the judgment was entered after he was  miss st on grounds that just the court just didn't have jurisdiction i think that's wrong i'd like to leave that because some other matters i'd like to cover with regard to argument is made on behalf of mrs adams  e it seems to me that what we have here at issue in this case visa v her arguments is simply the statement i don't need to provide an explanation for why i did what i did in my schedules even though evidence was a deuced under aubree to shift the burden to her to provide that explanation as part of their argument the other part of their argument is as i've tried to do well on with regard to the means test calculation that the explanation is i relied on my attorney that explanation at some point in time lost all merit because there was we established that she never made any of those payments she didn't own the home and then structures are clear enough to required to have required her to amend her schedules and had she done that one she would have failed the means t and would have either had to been dismissed or converted into a chapter thirteen plan by which she would have had to make some payments she makes a handsome salary every year when we get to this business of explanations under our barry aubrey hasn't been developed too much in terms of what's satisfactory what's not satisfactory in terms of an explanation but in this case even if one looks out the explanations that mr coming gave they still fail because you can average monthly payments all day long if that's the meaning of that  submit it please call the next case