statutory duty oath to red line but the bankruptcy court unlike the district court found that red line in fact was damaged by the marshal's breach saying  ninety six marshall was subject to live delivery for the amounts paid over plus the damages provision plus the interest as provided by the statute of the district court got a hold of this and in what appears to be a result reaching decision makes a conclusion without reference to applicable california commercial law or the of course one of judgments law that if union bank had a superior security interest on the day the marshall released the money well then red line couldn't have been damage yet if you think about this a little bit in the abstract it really doesn't make sense it would be it would mean that the marshall couldn't do anything you wanted with the money the marshall to go out and buy himself a new boat with the money absolutely you i think where i try to get the apples and oranges tree now it's one thing following the security line it's another thing following the marshals actions you may have a cause of action against a marshal because you are her according to your position but that doesn't influence i can see how that intrudes into the u c c security line to the union bank is that if i read between the lines here the union bank at a perfect security interest in accounts receivable they were subject to the use of the leverage you made now i know i cannot find where that security interest was ever destroyed your due waiver because of the stipulation but there was most board nation there all it happened was the money was gone you didn't have anything anymore the money the speech he had going into bankruptcy court if you would have proceeded the trustee would have come over and grabbed it anyway or you had the battle but as it turned out the wrongful act released  now actually what happened was that the bankruptcy court found out that the money because of the length of time it had been from the time of the levee to the time of the bankruptcy filing the money was no longer at the time of the bankruptcy filing the money was not property of the bankruptcy the state and the court can't turn a blind eye to the fact that union bank waive it's right to receive that collateral from the marshall the marshall has also reserved any rights and the bankruptcy was it was a no brainer there's no it's spent and all union bank said was if you want to play with the sheriff go and play with the sheriff i'm going to go over the bankruptcy for and ricky and whatever i can under my security interest because the security interest was never destroyed and i can see all they did is they waived any rights you may have in the third party claim for the money that was in the hands of the sheriff at that time it was gone by that twenty one the the marshal have to do the statutory duty to hold on the money until the third party claim was resolved and if it had conflicting claims the money couldn't resolve it a statutory duty to deposit the money with the court no question and you can take after the sheriff all you want to the problem is when you get it over  an action for conversion conversion is an action against the right of possession as between readline and union bank that it really is irrelevant first of all to this discussion because the issue is between red line and the marshall no matter what union bank's technical priority is until a court a competent jurisdiction in the original state court action ruled that the money belongs to union bank under the law it was redlines money until someone divested readline of the money so but for the fact that union bank i'm sorry but for the fact that the marshall gave the money away on the day that the union bank withdrew its third party claim readline would have been of nineteen ninety four in the bankruptcy filings was in april nineteenth ninety five it was outside the preference period and the bankruptcy court found outside the practice period the bankruptcy court is a finding and in the bankruptcy court order that finds that the funds were not property of the  bankruptcy court ruled that were not property of the estate and so redline had a perfected judgment interest in the  and if this is the case between red wine and the market the court and the bankruptcy court found that it should not be concerned with the rights of union bank and union bank sprites have been settled between the parties and what happened what happened to the money but for the fact that the marshall released the money  bank released its third party claims would have been titled redlines of the money and this court nor the district court should have been concerned with what might have happened what union bank might have done there may have been a number of reasons and a matter of fact there were a number of reasons why you can bank waived off on the third party claim besides the fact well the money's all gone you want to chase the marshall go chase the marshall but this court should not be concerned with that because this is a case of the marshals breach of duty and at the marshall had the duty to uphold the funds and remember how these funds were lost this wasn't after  hundred ninety five a third party claim was filed on behalf of the union bank who held its first secured priority first priority security interest in all  point in time and redline has never argued anything other than the fact that they did hold that first priority security interest so redline was never anything more than an unsecured california statute the marshal could not release those funds and still it was determined that who of the two parties the third party or  union gave priority enters only as a judge when any is pointed out long after the fact wrong after the operative date that redline has urged in this case well closer and closer forward in time because red line kept thinking if i keep getting back further and further back eventually we're going to find that union bank was over secured they could have marshaled the assets in red line could have been entitle to that particular set of funds but the reality is union bank was never over secured and what effect do we have to unions waiver none at all was they dismissed or third party claim as to what was held under the levee at the time that they filed a third party claim as a result of a wrongful transfer there's zero under levy but there's a big positive action against the sh so as i read the way that the stipulation says you want to play with the ship go ahead i don't need to share because i am reserving specifically in the stipulation all my rights which are first priority in the bank of the state i'm going to go over and get that three hundred thousand whatevers lanolin that stuff mine and i just want to check with you my understanding is there's one track on the union bank security and there's one track on the wrongful action against a sheriff hege a few other ones if you get over on the security side union bank wins every time my understanding in my interpretation is that they never gave that up and that union bank just had no interest in pursuing the marshall but they certainly could have i mean that was the only waiver that they gave up because there was never any effect on their first security interests so as a result redlined can step in now and say that somehow that first curity interest is gone well readline ran into another disaster because of the california code on damages that are allowed to get a lock or they're allowed against a share if it wasn't for the california law and they could get didn't have to show a loss under the two sections i'm think that's correct except that i would say that the sheriff made a mistake the marshal made a mistake and the mistake of fact in union bank i mean that at no time was red light ever damaged by this because redline six four i believe you either have to show that you have actual damages or that you are the person entitle to the funds and they can't show that in either instance because union bank always was the person in title to the thank you when the union bank withdrew its third party client readline unquestionably became the party entitled to  in the bankruptcy court that's exactly what we argued in the district court and that's exactly what we're arguing here our action is against the marshal for breach of the statutory duty to redline and that's why we're here redline was damaged counsel for the county made reference to redline stipulating to an operative day in fact we did not feel like to an operative days it was part of the mandate from the district court that said figure out what the rights of the parties were as of the date the marshal released the fun's march did not give red line any opportunity to protect its interests as a marshal did wrong here and red wine come before this court as it almost always is as the court of last resort to do what is right