the relationship did not create any fiduciary duty running from mister deluca to his uncle by marriage mister you know in fact the relationship doesn't even remotely resemble the kind of to do sharing relationships that are a five year revolving line of credit it is absolutely clear that code borrowers are not to do sherry's to one another under new york law and it is true that mister newdow posted the and yet in this case the district court held that and i'm quoting here in effect mister you go to trust mister deluca with over seven million dollars of his own securities that's at page seven hundred and sixty six dollars of the appendix which is page twenty three  there were no ends of the fiduciary relationship for mister deluca to serve the entire point of this transaction was to get access to farms so that mister luca mister deluca could appropriate those funds for his own  run out of time or before your honor's may begin asking questions to be clear i am focusing on mister you those that do sherry duty claims for to reach st the district court's opinion is just entirely whether misess deluca is going to be subject to this five million dollars judgment for the rest of her life or whether it was fair or legal error and reversible error for the district court to find that there was any fiduciary duty here in the st place across the board for him and his liability is the same for all the causes of action correct yes and no your honor yes that is that is correct in order for him not to be subject to this judgment he needs to win across the board deficient opinion and to be very clear we are not on this appeal for purposes of this appeal we are excepting the district court's findings of fact we understand there was a trial the district court was there  she the district you know heard the testimony so we understand that it's very unlikely that this court would want to revisit the district court's factual findings but the application of those factual findings to the law board and you know a general counsel or something like that correct that is correct your honor and so i mean it's generally a fact specific inquiry and one of the inquiries is where i mean where there is a family relationship that's that's relevant an him and said i need money to expand my business and that's mister you know story again this is this is accepting the fact as as essentially as played by mister newdow and found by the district court mister de luca went to mister you know and said i need money to expand my business and mister you know said great i'll try to help you get the money let's go to let's go to tribe together and we'll barter will will become borrowers on a line of credit and i'll post my stock as collateral so that was a favor that he did for that doesn't the fact that new york court say that a government tore situation doesn't in itself created to do sure a relationship doesn't mean that new york doesn't recognize the new surely relationships existing apart from that and that i think was the process celebrants question there was a longstanding relationship in which robert rely on  questions one at a time i'm the st question again i strongly disagree with any inference or statement that mister newdow relied on mister deluca that's just simply not the nature of the relationship and what this court held in or can that be left to the bankruptcy court as you said that's what's in the back row without saying one way or the other bankruptcy courts are very good deciding whether there are to do her relationships or not is that one possibility i can't say that i have exhaustively research that question your honor but i think the answer is if there is a if there is a i full years the best argument that we should reverse rather than remand for additional fact well this issue was actually briefed in post trial briefing before the district court and the district court declined for whatever reason to to address it but but i think i think there's plenty of  l i think there's there's actually an undisputed factual record here that the allegedly oral agreement between between mister deluca and mister hugh though was that mister mister having having post his collateral to make the dispositive and actually quite simple is what mister you know by his own admission was was supposedly promising mister deluca was that he would make the he would continue to post his collateral to facilitate the five year existence of this revolving line of credit and there's no dispute about that mister smith we put we put the statement in our briefs i can i can try to find the state when i get a chance but but the point is mister you know said on the stand yes i knew this was a five year line of credit and that's exactly what i promised to do to help mister deluca achieve and so it's under the question of the new york statute of frauds is is very easily answered you can perform a need to go back to the district court and have some kind of factual finding on what exactly this or what graham it was but there was a whole trial on this question and i'm looking at the i mean looking at the district court's opinion right now on page sixteen the district court wrote while the term of the line of the credit line was five years there was no obligation on the part of mister deluca to continue to utilize the line of credit for that entire period and again that that  that is exactly what the district court held your honor and that is it is not a legally correct ruling and the reason it's not is because again there is an infinite number of things that mister deluca he could have decided he didn't want to be in the construction trade anymore and he might never have drawn down a single cent so he might have you might have gone to his uncle and said even though we have this oral agreement allegedly i'm releasing you from it i don't want you to perform under it anymore you know take your money back he could have done that absolutely but but this court's precedent well actually and new york the new york court of appeals precedent on the statute of frauds is that it's not enough it's just one party can perform under the know what mister you know promised to do by his own admission was to was to make this line of credit this revolving line of credit available to mister deluca for the next five years and and that by definition violate the statute of  another and so the appellant argument here while they say it is a legal war and then it is really a challenge to the district court factual findings regarding the type of relationship that mister hugo and m had considerably superior knowledge and expertise experience in the area of land acquisition construction and he relied on that plus as close kinship with m made these factual findings concerning concerning the extent of the trust that they had between the same is true my adversaries argument regarding the fact that coke or don't have to be shared duties to one another  court held the district court held were with the material so those are collateral misrepresentation and omission and that's why the fraud claim the contract claim both survives separate and apart from each other  it seems that your position is that mister grunow did not agree to keep his collateral tied up for the pl five year term of the line of credit in other words i take your argument pay the money back early but the district court did not and i read it make a specific factual finding on this client so even if we agree that your position is the better one why shouldn't we still remand the case to the district court for additional fact finding what's your best argument that we should simply a perm your honor it was my best argument is  finding about whether mister you could have performed within one year that a need for the court ultimate conclusion here which is that mister deluca had not met his burden of proving that the oral agreement between the party you could have could not have does that matter if mister you know had given mister lucas seven million dollars or five million dollars or any amount of money and said go build me a home use your expertise build a home and make me some money turn turn a profit with this money but then anything other than possibly to pay back the money and so so if mister you know has some kind of contract claim fine if it's that then he can try to prove the contract right but but the fact that they borrowed money cobar loans cosigned for loans guarantee loans for each other all the time there are literally thousands of published opinions in new york jurisprudence on guarantees and borrowing and lending and yet somehow neither the district court nor mister you know nor nor nor me frankly none of us located a single case that holds that when when a family member spiral money together or when one family member guarantees the another  members debt that that creates a producer a relationship it just doesn't and so of course we agree that there can be ad hoc fiduciary relationships that arise in certain circumstances but it is absolutely clear that this is not one of those consider you know how how could how could it possibly being as there are family members we have your argument thank you thank you thank you both to your arguments well argued well the court will reserve t