i'd like to remind the counsel for the appellate that if you wish to reserve some time for rebuttal you are your own clock master keep an eye on the clock and you can do morning arielle stern appearing on behalf of us bank the district court correctly exercised jurisdiction in this case but it erred in dismissing us banks complaint on a five year statute of limitations below us bank established or section it showed that it was that the parties were diverse it appeared in the case as the point of suing in its own name and under this court's recent opinion in the de maurice case which reaffirms that when we have  that appears in its own name and as a traditional trust it is the citizenship of the trustee not the beneficiaries of the trust that governs the jurisdiction on and also what in the record tells us that this is a traditional trust that the record of sparse and that acknowledge that however there is sufficient allegation in the complaint to show that several paragraphs of the complaint and i can point this out starting on paragraph thirty two paragraph thirty five paragraph forty three to forty five all claim the legal ownership of the property interest so in those paragraphs u s bank claims that it is the beneficiary of the deed of trust that it is the owner of the no in the say that it's a traditional trust as they do not your honor however in our view whether you look at the case from the u s supreme court or even the dimmer ice case the pleading standard does not change the standard continues to be a short and plain statement of the of jurisdiction and we believe as a pleading matter the complaint sufficiently establishes facts to support diversity jurisdiction question jurisdiction there is a right claim to know the u s constitution under the th and th amendments that due process challenge the district court did not reach that because it dismissed the case that we in our complaint specifically reference cites other cases one from the th circuit and one from the d c circuit which in addition to whether the trust susan its own name look at look at some other things the most important one being whether the trustee holds managers and disposes of the property on behalf of the beneficiaries of the trust whether he has legal title that's one of the elements yes and in this case i think we've shown that there is legal title to the assignment of that wealth has to be shown besides the fact that he's in the trustee is the owner and has been since the th century but trust me we think that is sufficient and separately there be borrowed though i mean it may not apply by its literal terms but it might be similar enough that borrowing would apply the reason for that is that we have a specific case from the bass supreme court interpret ing and applying the that statue of limitations and that is the standard that we have to this court that was our constitutional challenge to a statute that was affecting the plaintiff in an ongoing way continuously this is really much more about a challenge to a specific incident that happened with owns it and b doesn't and that from that point on he has rights in the future that is current that is correct however we emphasize that this is not a traditional quiet title the banks interest  it's not a dispute between two rival claimants to the same title it is rather it the question is whether the bank has the right to sell the property to afford to somebody to recover the money correct and the right we claim is currently existing it goes into the future the contract that gives rise to the security interest is in the stallman contract that doesn't mature until some point in the future and for that violation is is certainly the context in which the differently came up but the applying language speaks about disputed in future disputes that without limiting it to constitutional issues so under undercity  but it also talks about i read it as constitutional challenges to statutes so let's just say for a nd we disagree with you about city and firmly and there is some statute of limitations here can you go back to why we shouldn't borrow the quite quiet title the statue of limitations we satisfy ourselves and trust that there's jurisdiction and don't need to dismiss why shouldn't we sort of fight to the nevada's supreme court the question whether a statute of limitation applies to this kind of case in light of fernley and if so what type what the limitations were we would not oppose that i think that does make sense that said the court should be aware there are a couple of cases that present that very question to the bass supreme court there's really no way to know when the court well side does but there is at least one case that squarely addresses all of these limitation issues and so the supreme court in the best report will be deciding that issue at some point what is that case and i don't remember the specific name on it  should we hold this proceeding for that decision i don't think that's a bad idea if the court determines that there is jurisdiction because then the bass spring board will eventually say something about this i would be happy to i would like to reserve my remaining twenty five seconds thank the morning your honor my name is roger tell me please the court i'm here for thunder properties i guess i'll deal with the jurisdictional issue directly part of the problem we have with the jurisdictional point is that there's been in terms of the statue of limitations i think councils and the determination of city or for a lease decision is completely inappropriate the point with firmly was this you can't look retrospectively you can only look at present and pro spectacle on claims because in firmly as the court's aware they said there was a statue of limitations problem as to the claims that were retrospective what counsel attempts to do and what they attempt to do in this case is very simple they're saying that because we lost our right to foreclose and the foreclosure deed was in fact entered in record on to ten of eleven every th of two thousand and eleven they brought this case five and a half years later that they're asking the corporate declaratory relief on what issue that they can proceed with their foreclosure sale know the underlying issues what they're asking they're asking is are deed extinguished well by definition the court has to go through a determination and figure out whether or not the the alley the actions at that time are in fact valid and extinguish the cause corollary to this and it's not on appeal but the  claim to the property other than they have a lien interest that is been extinguished they didn't proceed in an appropriate time on their extinguishment issue they had actual notice they were involved in the underlying foreclosure process knew about it that's in the record they did nothing to prevent the sale there is a recorded deed which is record notice to the world that they no longer on the home or don't have any don't have the collateral interest that  this process there is no bright line you're arguing that a three year statute of limitations applies but that's only when the action is upon a liability created by statute and i don't understand how that this type of action what is the zero only because you have to be seized of the property either to recover it were to go after title reigns in the district court though you thought that was the statute of limitations right the five year one well that was the that was the it is a if the five year is correct for a quite  election but they can't possess a quiet title action because they never were possessed of the property so what they get is a declaratory relief action to say whether the deed is in fact extinguished and but i thought under nevada law if there was a similar action you borrowed it's statute of limitations so i would have thought even though this isn't exactly about possession of property it's similar to quiet title and maybe you can borrow it and it seems like that would be you were arguing for a five year beloved now you're not i'm a little bit confused about that last change courts in the lower district of terminations that are responding in our arguments currently it's been the development if you will of what's going on so you're saying new new cases have come out th think this needs to be certified to the nevada supreme court to work out for help for the case they already have certainly i wouldn't tell you ron is no but i don't think it needs to be and the reason for that is the last clear and the problem with what claire and i don't seem like the is clear you argued five years and just go where things for years and i think there are cases all over the place about what how many years it is respectfully i understand and i know i know this court has seen a lot of these scituate cases and there's been a flux of all of these going through the system and candidly that's given some rise to opinions that are morphing if you will over time but in this particular case the bright line is you had a foreclosure that occurred two thousand and eleven this case was brought five and a half years later with all due respect i don't shouldn't have to go back and figure out where the thirty four or five what i know is it's more than five what i thought though if it was five there might be some factual disputes that mattered about when the tenants in the property left when you actually had  discuss that for a minute their argument that they get the tax on when the borrower leaves they're still not seized of the property they still don't get a five year statute limitation no matter what they don't get only shipley do a foreclosure action that's the law so they don't you know that see that this property until they foreclose and put it in a name secondarily when we require and my client acquires the foreclosure deed they are no longer in possession there is don't fail on their possession so if they were go to be given five years and if the former owners could bring an action which they didn't and if the bank had the authority to step in issues as the owner and bring a former action which they can't then maybe five years but they still went five and a half in this case so i don't know how they rebuild so if it's five years that i know you don't want to be five years anymore and i'm like a case let's say it's five years when do you think the five year starts running from foreclosure deed recording it can't be any later than that how do you get a later statue of limitations it would be when your action should accrue that's when the bank had the right to do whatever they wanted to do they had their years where they don't think it matters whether the borrowers are still on the property at that point i do not because they're not the owners anymore you're on this if they have a statute and if they brought a case they have five years in the foreclos the recording they do not own the property they have no redemption rights pursuant to an arrest once again and they have no way to return to the property so i don't believe that that works i know from a legal point of view there's no there's no redress they have a claim they would actually possess a claim quite tight potentially because they were previously seized they could bring a claim but they are barred from doing it more than five years out even if the bank could step in the issues which they can't even if they could they still only have a five year statute so i don't know reframing this for firmly it makes sense only because the record so clear and i don't see that there's any path if you will i mean the statue of limitations they cite stature repos for example they cite that as one of six t now that's only if they have a valid deed of trust and how can you ask a court to tell me i want to do a foreclosure action council says there's no limitation on a foreclosure action and i'm in non judicial closure the reason is simple you honor it doesn't run if i own a valid the trust of the lender against the property it doesn't run it only runs under statute or repose ten years after maturity date or acceleration whatever that is all right notes et actually accelerate the know they send in an n o d a notice of default action to sell i'm telling you to pay it all off they go ten years from that date and do nothing i think the statue riposte upset if the note stays on the property right well but you're saying if no other applied then ran in the meantime no and again why is this if if the deed of trust has been extinguished how do you get a statue to repose you don't get a statue or opposed you have to have a valid deed of trust secured by the property it's the same logic with if you were trying to foreclose on a he said there's non judicial foreclosure sale right under non judicial foreclosure sale if you're going to do that you have to have a valid data trust that's why it doesn't have a statute it's not secret it's a very simple interest in the property of the slander title if they tried to foreclose on of and extinguish deed that's why they haven't done it and that's why they're looking for some judicial determination that maybe they can go forward because otherwise we would count as to them for slander of title and related matters as under properties argues they would then have a slander of title claim and the courts would have to resolve that issue we think that's a practical matter that illustrates the problem with not applying city or friendly these rights are not determined  retrospectively as part of what we're trying to do with the statute of limitations is to put to rest the issue as to whose whose rights belong to whom we think that as a practical matter what th notices that there's a super priority lng there's no request for that in fact the but there's a there's a big fat cloud on your title potentially there as i think what what thunder property says is that there is a and we challenge that that what that was never actually claimed in any of the recorded documents