the one court is correct all of them are somewhat related but this is the case that i'm going to address st so the facts are the same person most of us very close ok and basically what happened in the case we're discussing right now there was a state there was a federal court judgment rendered by judge manual real and summary judgment which went up on appeal to this court and in the interim before the appeal was determined the  claiming that my client of insensate cortez transferred property to avoid paying the riginal judgment which was on appeal the facts of that case were simply well we know the facts i said blessedly what we're saying is the issue that i'm trying to address or today is the fact that a nd judgment was rendered against mr cortez in this case even though there was a prior judgment for the same fact then and that doesn't strike me as particularly unusual there are lots of cases where multiple defendants are liable for the same obligation what's the problem no it's the same defendant there are many cases where the same can defendant can be obligated for different reasons on the same debt still what's the problem when this happens all the time in the law whether it's one defendant multiple defendants what's the problem there's clearly only one debt they can be satisfied that's the i think the district court made that clear it's the underlying the nd judgment was subsumed by the st judge how simply by adding additional monies owed for issue here in light of that i believe is going to be a double recover how because the original judgment in the underlying case st case is now being added to by a has there been any effort to collect the judgment to oh yes your way has the might as money been collected more than once the money is not going collect so what's the problem i mean if if there's an effort after the money is paid the st time to collect more then you may have an issue until then and you're wasting our time can i address the nd point ok there was an award of punitive damages with absolutely no evidence in the record of the financial condition punitive damages but more important there was no evidence of what his financial condition was and under california law that's clearly necessary before you can award punitive damages against an individual was zero evidence and that's my primary point with regard to the nd judgment is that the punitive damage award did not have any support there is zero evidence a better it is a what his financial condition was and we were not given an is and none was done and the orders in jump position that there was no evidence in the record at all regarding the financial condition of your client minimal amount it was in the record but nothing to support street three vehicles one of the properties generates income was that of ns evidence in the record that evidence was in the wreck so you started by saying there was no evidence than now you've moved to minimal evidence now turns out there's maybe more than that so what what was there why wasn't that enough because there was no valuation provided but there was no appraisals provided there was nothing provided there was no proof as to what  and who own the property all right so i mean to say you cannot grant punitive damages on that basis seems to be highly irregular considering what was what is necessary to war and that was in the wreck that was basically how it was done it was done in that manner and i don't see how this court can support a punitive damage award against an individual with no proof  not no proof anymore no no it's not telling us no proof no evidence no nothing because it's there you can't deny what's there you might try to explain to us why which there's not enough but don't keep telling us is not there we know better punitive damages in the amount of over nine hundred thousand dollars based upon what was in the record comments one what case are you relying upon to support your proposition that the amount of evidence in the record was insufficient to sustain a punitive damages award tell me your strongest case that point something me in the brief tell me your strongest your strongest case shirt your single strongest case to support your argument had to be meaningful evidence of the defendant's financial condition is necessary sure that any award is rationally base it also cites courtesy ambulance service  response to your question counsel reference the adams case in fact in the adams case the court specifically declined to take the defendant suggestion that matter that a plane is required to prove a defendant's net worth in other words there's no net worth analysis that is required of the sort that counsel is purporting to to  this court but you don't disagree that there has to be some evidence in the record regarding the financial condition of the defendant and there is a or issue but i do you don't take issue with that proposition do you i do not your honor i do not  fact if the court were to were to reference its footnotes seven in the adams case from the supreme court it's fifty four cal rd one of five page one hundred and sixteen footnote seven you'll see the actual discussion of that net worth analysis is this is not required by the california supreme court i want you i mean there were findings of fact which it looks like you may have prepared by judge jury all entered that go through the different properties and other assets that mr cortez has and so why don't you just walk walk us through what the basis was for the financial condition because it does seem to be apparent in the record yes your honor so  which is it at page eight hundred and fifty five above it doesn't help us you need to refer to the excerpts of record that's how we have our materials organized yes your honor i was only going to make reference to the fact that a declaration was submitted that the declaration i realize is not in the excerpts of record submitted your honor but the findings of fact with which no issue has been been taken is in terms of whether they are supported by by record evidence  is in the record the evidence of financial condition is throughout the record but it summarized it pages thirty two through thirty four of the excerpts of record which so the findings of fact in conclusions of law that the district judge judge real entered here were not included in the excerpts of record they were included by our side in the supplemental excerpt so this would be in supplemental excerpts  graph thirty three of the commercial property the defendant owns garvey avenue in el monte as well as of the commercial establishment seated upon that commercial property  in paragraph thirty four the number of vehicles owned by the defendant the gratian street property income producing property for which the defendant receives a rent  dollars per month in addition elsewhere in the findings of fact and conclusions of law is it is evident that on the date of the fraudulent transfers at issue in this case the defendant had over four hundred and fifty paragraphs twelve through opposing counsel that the amount of the punitive damages was in the neighborhood of nine hundred thousand and eight was it was nine hundred and two thousand some change your honor and so what about this information that you've related to us ard has not been challenged either in front of the district court or here in fact if the court refers to that well suppose that we were to infer a challenge to the amount of the war by way of the argument that there is not sufficient financial information in the record what would be your response ester have the evidence in the record supports the amount of the pinnate if damages awards so that it's not unreasonable well first of all the punitive damages award is exactly two x two times the amount of the other award so it's four hundred and fifty one thousand dollars and change multiplied by two which is i would say in california a modest punitive damages award and particularly it's not excessive in light  of of the assets of the defendant here which your honor i neglected to mention one thing i meant to mention it's not expressly referenced in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law i don't think it's necessary to support them but it is in the record in this case it was in the record before before judge real it  alter ego of these two green companies one of which was the successor to the other and both of them filed what i will characterize i'm not asking the court to accept this  petitions but in them among some of the minimal evidence that was actually provided in support of these bankruptcy petitions at page three hundred and forty seven we see that the revenue of the grain company to answer your honor's question the the courts of the of the state of california treat as distinct issues the adequacy of evidence of financial condition to support a an award of p damages and as a separate issue whether the amount of the award is excessive in light of the defend its ability to pay and as to that nd issue there's not been any articulation of challenge there was a declaration put forward including the evidence to the district court there were findings of fact judge real waited the period prescribed by the federal rules of the local rules or both joining objection to the findings of fact no objection after that period was expired your honor judge breast than judge real signed without any objection the findings in fact in conclusions of law submitted based on the evidence and then after that on the very last day that the defendant made the motion the denial of which is the subject of of this appeal and the entirety of the of the argument with respect to punitive damages can be found of excessiveness in respect of the number and so i was going to reference the court to the actual motion that was filed before judge real so you could see him but judge grace brass had to ask you whether or not the fine is a fact or objected to and i'm looking at the find is a fact regarding the punitive damages and it doesn't really talk about the proportionality of the punitive damages or how it's related to the financial condition or what the damages was arrived at and how it was arrived at it doesn't really tell us very much well i would respectfully suggest to your honor that it is sufficient to meet the  standard under california law i can point the court to  foreigners specifically to avoid paying a valid judgment was not acceptable and so the only issue as i understand it was just is there enough evidence of the financial condition before the district  alternatively whether pineda damages are even available under the statute well as under california law which they are as to a lot of those it's clearly the case that punitive damages categorically are available in this case california law is that that the trial judge must have a meaningful record it's not required to have a perfect record it certainly is not required to have a net worth analysis of the type suggested by the defendant that comes straight from the from the california is in this record including specifically what is referenced in judge rules findings of fact and conclusions of law and the extra pieces that i've referenced the court to this morning i think it's your position that that your honor what i'm saying to you and what i think is the appropriate basis for this court's decision which should affirm the judgment in this case is that it is not a clear error by the district court it is not it is not a clear error in the  instance for the district court on this record to have imposed punitive damages at all and in the amount of which in which it awarded punitive damages and it is not an abuse of discretion on this record for the district judge to have denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment that was filed in this case which is not pages forty seven dollars forty eight  of the excerpts of record and which is limited to your honor a few recitations of what i would submit are uncontested  statements of the law and no effort whatsoever to tar those legal principles to the circumstances of the case or to point out in any way where the court committed a clear error by  judgment by entering a motor money judgment against cortez which duplicated the judgment already entered against him in two thousand and sixteen in the prior fraudulent transfer action in violation of the rule or have been in double recovery we also filed in that same motion to amend or alter the judgment that by entering a judgment for punitive damages against cortez where such relief was not available under the uniform financial condition and the inability of the compensatory damages already against him the another issue that i'd like to address which is really related to the st appeal is that the time that this happened matter was up on appeal and the court of the this court affirmed and reverse the original summary judgment in part and there was an argument and try to get   terminations asked to what the true damages were in the st case this case came up and the amount of money that was transferred and went to pay down the debt on the property that adam berry could have collected creating more equity and i don't know how that's a fraudulent transfer when they have the right to levy against the property for which the debt was paid down and the nd payment was to the dependent son claim that claiming that he owed them the money and that was the basis for their progeny transfer action nothing at all at any time prevented them meaning a very from levying on the property that they knew was available to satisfy the judgment they took zero effort to do that rather than do that they filed the nd trial and commands action and about those and they were submitted to the court without objection but no but then we filed a motion to alter and amend them which we had the right to do which was denied what evidence do you bring for any at that time plea in that in that document we le which is up on appeal we allege that there was insufficient evidence to support the punitive damage award in the amount you made that argument was there any anything accompanying that suggesti that this in fact was an excessive part sought to collect an excessive portion of the net worth of defend we basically argued that it was the only appropriate you argued after findings have been entered that well that we want to redo but you didn't do anything that suggests the underlying potential problem which is that if in fact defendant didn't have adequate net worth to justify an award this time the court should make a correction but are you entitled to a redo i mean that was an argument that should have been made before the findings of fact were entered and to come in later and say well there wasn't enough evidence for that without doing anything to c test the point strikes me is closing the barn door after the horses oh it was made before the judge render where in the original opposition to the motion for summary judgment that the case isn't it the case though that your client owns three homes he has he owns a tortilla factory he owns three vehicles may i just respond to that money yes that's why i'm asking the question like client own to commercial properties that helps which the actual debt there is no evidence of what the equity in those properties are my client did not own superior my client had sold superior to his children my client then when the superior one under because they had a very grain delivered six hundred thousand dollars and defective product to a small business for which they were paid for and then went to an arbitration of grain arbitration where one of the members of the arbitration panel worked for at a barrier that being said my client's business went out of business at being superior that's who the judgement was against superior the original action was filed it was granted summary judgment which went up on appeal the court affirmed and reversed a portion of it and there were reversed all related to what was the true damages that had a very word title two in the original underlying judgment this case had to do with them transferring property which could have been used to satisfy the judgment found that it was not wasn't conceded the transfer of the two hundred and fifty one thousand dollars two cents pay down the mortgage on a property that they were aware of what only have created more equity for them to collect on their judgment if they chose to levy on it nothing prevented them from levy on it with regard to the two hundred thousand dollars i will concede that that was a questionable transaction