of creating those accounts but then there's the dept of credit did some things with the account of failed to take some actions that are required by that act when the children become in a basis but the problem with the two older children is a count at least one of them actually the money was taken out and put in the other one of the other can't is that right yes and so and so you've control over this account that seems to be well you know yet issue is but when it gets a certain age i'm not under this act anymore in terms of gifts so if you take it because the corpus of those accounts while they are minors the purpose of that those accounts can only be expanded for their benefit and there is case law in the bankruptcy court it seems that this is going on the time it really comes up a girl's case  legally and equitably under your theory and therefore anything that a trustee of those who's the guiding of this money would do to it has no effect so one cannot put money into this account and then be required by law to transfer it out of a certain age but fail to do so because once you take it out once you hit that legal age you are out of the uniform m had taken it out of their accounts they could they don't have to if the money was in their towns they could under the terms of the accounts go into the bank and remove the money themselves it's under their social security numbers their birthday as well as our best policy say that the children have full access to that money reasonable to assume that the by the time for example turned twenty one she was twenty two and a half when the government put the money out of her savings well hunter i believe was exploited at the age of twenty one so his reason and speculative but his reason for leaving the money and could have been that he is the boy but again there was no reason to include the money until the government took it out of athe are a whole bunch of claims in this case and the district court issued a what you call a pretty forward you'll be rolling in order to get us the issues in the prior appeal it didn't issue any fifty four be notice on the children the children would have had an opportunity to file a motion to quash the respect and ask for their property and then if that was denied if a motion clashes deny the government then the dead children have standing to appeal to them which it's a it's a it's an appealable a final appeal decision so in this case the fact that it was a summary judgment is sort of a it's a procedural i would be because we were never given the chance to move to quash the writ of execution before it was issue to the only reason it isn't is because of the procedural ideas that were created by the government ok you understand this it's a big sprawling case gone if you understand that right  interest and the fact that we had to file the appeal out of an abundance of caution to preserve we the deadline and we we have filed a motion for or we have filed one he then turns the money over if he does not turn the money over that it maybe is so in a case where you never intended to give it to him in the st instance and that's the problem the conundrum at least of the evidence what you get are certain age so he didn't do it he didn't do it either one of course is the reason is i got litigation going off and because i've got litigation go on i don't want to do look like i'm doing something flawed so when he would have that money he had every intention of moving it back at the time or a twenty one hunter needed way with have access to the money and that's the issue he never did he never did move terms of the super c d s bond pending appeal as this court noted there is still work to be done in this case and therefore this is not a final judgment that that this court has jurisdiction over and in fact in an earlier appeal in this very litigation that's the less united states versus let's appeal this court looked at similar sorts of that in that case it was prejudgment attachments here we have a super c d s on securing an appeal but in that case looks so so we're here on summary judgment and the question is when we review this i take it we view it in a light most favorable to the children and while there does appear to be evidence he didn't give today to the timing with respect to that issue this court and lot said that the reason why the collateral order doctrine was not available was because the issues raised in the let's appeal similar to the issues raised here were not significantly important which is one of the requirements of the cloud order doctrine and important in the sense that the issues being raised in lots just as here only relate to individuals property interests in specific accounts so in that sense even though you're correct that the let's was let's was prejudgment attachments the reasoning of let's also disposes of any suggestion here that collateral order doctrine would be available but to return to the to judge wins question assuming that you were to reach the merits and to find that you had jurisdiction again this court has held and this is a year and unpublished decision was the only case that i'm aware of here but in the united states versus low grow that seven t decision united states versus under seal so so i think even though this was framed as a summary judgment type briefing i think what the just report was getting at here was it was trying to decide whether or not it could resolve these questions on the papers  finding of fact and it said i have to find a certain fact by clear and convincing evidence and it says that that standard is met and then the case comes up on appeal and it turns out the district was wrong it only had to find that fact by propounder it's this court would would wouldn't send the decision back to the district court because it had asked it apply to higher up an entry standard than it needed to and i think that's what happened here they just weren't held itself to a summary judgment type standard and found that standard met but this court's case law is clear that these sorts of decisions about motions squash and super c d s bonds are the sorts of decisions that are intrusted to district courts discretion and so despite the framing of the briefing and the decision says that when he opened the accounts for hunter and haley is two children as older children he said the purpose of of these deposits was to help my children pay for educational and other expenses when they became adults enough to create a material dispute a fact among those things self serving statements of the party also contradictory statements and i think if you look at the affidavit in its entirety here mr dent you know said these things about at it he says i never use it in money form our personal use he didn't consider the money to be his and he said he was willing to take steps to give it back so so to be clear there's no requirement  list i'm not sure whether or not that that the way that the district approached this was was was reasonable which was that it st asked the question whether or not the united states had made a showing that dent had a substantial interest in these monies and united states had made that showing based on all of the evidence of control that it put forward and then at that point appellant said it was their burden at that point to show that despite that the the money was not in fact mr johnson that the children in fact over this money and when it came to that again the evidence before that the district court on this issue was was undisputed that mr dunn had engaged in extensive conduct that was fundamentally inconsistent with the idea that he viewed this money money then homo's he have a substantial interest in the bank account so that the key word there your honor is valid gift and so there is that the case law is clear that under the u g m a it's not enough to merely invoke the statute invoking the statute creates a what you are saying is that a custodial manager at the end of the one person become twenty one there are reasons why you have his uniform give you no tax reason other reasons and i think i'm trying to i'm trying to understand how it is that you can convert that money back to your sil when you get twenty one when has been set up as a valid gift at that point so again that that the key there is valid gift and that that that is that was the question before the district court and so question presented here on appeal the question you know there's no dispute that in order to invoke the protections of the you g m a an individual has to give a gift and part of giving a gift is that at the moment they give over that money there has to have been donat of intent in other words intends to surrender dominion and control over the gifts and indefeasible and finally give it to the giftie and so that's the question whether or not this was case if a court finds that the custodial manager never intended i'm just asking you straight up you don't need a court to find that out i mean if it based on what you saying is that is the custodial manager that you don't have you not obligated to comply with if you if you are if you say that you're opening an account under the you g m a but when you open that account you in fact have no donat of intent then yes that money was never actually gifted to your kids or to ever else you wanted to give it to you and the district had before ample evidence indicating that in fact it's circumstantial evidence but courts of recognize that the treatment of that money during the life of the account is circumstantial evidence of the donut of intent that the dony had at time zero and that when the money was was put in there in the st place and again it i think it bears emphasizing here that mr dent in his affidavit to the court made clear and repeatedly acknowledged and admitted that he had done things with this money during the life of the account fundamentally inconsistent with the idea that he viewed this money as his children so he said i never got it as my own and yet he admitted that a year and change that i think this is a two thousand and thirteen after creating his son's account he emptied that account out and moved all of the money in his son's account quote unquote son's account into than account that he opened for his daughter so who has the burden of proof when when there's a delegation of the adolescent of faith with an interest when you have has the burden here when when that argument is made that that he doesn't have a substantial asset in our money when an asset is subject to a writ of execution or supersedeas bond or is it otherwise implicated in  judgment in for some proceedings in these accounts were subject to a writ of execution when an asset is sub to rid of execution and and rd party wants to come in and demonstrate that the asset should never have been so treated because it was in fact owned by someone else the individual coming into courts and trying to remove that asset is the party that bears the burden of showing that they have ownership and that therefore that asset should be should be removed from the writ or the supersedeas pond or what clear the united states has not executed that the money is not with the united states and i'm only trying to be clear own the burden of proof here i know we can play that up i'm not trying to get around the words i'm trying to get to the issue that i want to hear the answer to and that is who has the burden of pro united states to show that there is a substantial nonexempt interest and in the money that's what allows it to be subjected so the burden is on the government to show that the judgement data has of substantial interest in the in this pro substantial nonexempt of interest as that's the that's the yes it is not only a rd party to show that other what is not is not only very party to put me and show that he doesn't have it it's only government to show dead he does have it once that once the united states has made it showing that there is evidence to support a finding that there is a substantial nonexempt interest here that evidence was substantial mr dent sole signatory on the account only i don't know i got how you characterize  just trying to understand the burden of proof side of it says right so as long as the focus is st only government someone says no you took my property you this it does not your property because he has a substantial interest then the government has to property you can't included in this litigation these were the exact issues that were raised in lots there too in this case that came up to this court you know several years ago there too it was rd parties coming in saying that they had certain interests and certain assets that had been subjected to pre judgment attachments and there this court had no trouble finding that that there was no jurisdiction even to hear that appeal and as you know the same outcome should be reached here there's as judge you know i lighted earlier the only why the main liability judgment was properly before this court on appeal was because the district court it issued a fifty four b ruling certifying that there are still claims of the united states have yet to be litigated this money is currently being held in a supersedeas on in the courts registry account and so there are multiple inflection points moving forward at which things can change in this case and at which appellants good at a later time assert the same sorts of issues the same sort start here and then keep going so so that the case said that at the palin site this parker case out of the circuit for the proposition that motions to quash lots of execution can be final orders that case makes clear that at all events when asking whether something is final motion to quash or otherwise the key question is whether or not there's anything left for the district court to graduate to that matter and so and so here it's you need look no further than discourse order to see that there is still  mr dent presumably can go to the court and get those funds released from the district courts registry but in the united states has has no role to play in that anymore the money isn't with the united states it's with it's again children under anyone's view of this these accounts you know often the names of the accounts where mr dent as custodian of the children and so so making the custodian of these accounts aware that they were going to be subjected could be subjected to these to these judgments you know in the united states you would list was sufficient to also give notice to the to the individuals who the custodian was managing these accounts for claimed to be managing these accounts that is here it has crockery of that the debtor has a substantial nonexempt interest and if the debtor controls property that doesn't belong to him it is simply not subject to rid of execution the substantial nonexempt interest is a lot more of the condition they have absolutely every reason to know of both of these these hunger and haley were over the age of twenty one in south carolina u g m a is clear the custodianship does not extend past that point they had every reason to know that these two individuals who are not their father should be notified and the government has the responsibility to give notice to every person that it has reasonable reason to believe has an interest in those accounts and why they did not get noticed my clients is beyond me the fact that they gave notice to mr that in addition doesn't say that these specific accounts are going to be levy it said the grid execution was extremely broad it did not list these accounts on the writ of execution there was no way for him to know that these accounts would but i want to be clear to you that the self serving affidavit idea is only for self serving opinion it's opinions that are self serving cannot be credited to a political but in this case this was not a self serving  affidavit that was serving his children which means it's a not subserving and that he only put and he only testified in that affidavit to one instance that was an opinion and that was his opinion at eighteen that his son was not quite ready to have the responsibility for this money and that opinion is something that he is in his duties as a custodian is look wired to may i mean the g m a that is his job to determine at the age of eighteen if his children or the other minors if it wasn't his children are responsible enough that he's that is why you see i mean allows the custodian the discretion to determine at eighteen or twenty one now mr starter keeps mentioning the idea that mr going to repeatedly violated the if you and i but i do not see that reflected in the record when mr bennett took the money out of hundreds account he put it in a comparable account but he easily put it back he kept the account open and he deposited additional fun there is no evidence in the record that would indicate that he thought that that money could be him and even if he did the fact that he thought if you had thought that money was hailey's that he could give it from hunter to hailey but doesn't necessarily mean that that created used it for his own purposes there is no evidence in the record whatsoever that ben ever took a penny of that money for himself and the treatment of money from by a custodian after donated  starter was referring to the case law that says that donated intent can be can be defeated by later acts all of those cases that we that we read and we brief said that that custodian had to treat that money as if it was his so for example somebody putting money into an account a you have my account and then immediately taking it out and getting himself a business loan or buying a truck or something else like so the treatment of the money has to be for the custodian to defeat it get there's no evidence that these gifts that there was nothing but don't even count in two thousand and eleven when these gifts were created and mr betts affidavit is an affidavit filled with evidence which are which has been uncontroverted in the record who do just the term and that the burden of proof in this case is that the government has to prove that that has a substantial nonexempt interest and property the issue there could be another that you're hearing i do believe in this case summary judgment standard is correct because there was never a full actual wait you know there was never a full evidentiary hearing there was never a full measuring up of facts which could in which abuse of discretion could be applied to you which is why assess and standard summary judgment but even if it was abuse of discretion the district court would have used discretion as to the weight of the fa