wm had a rather the bank had a judgment against one of your clients that is correct and the parties got together and made an agreement that basically the underlying is i understand it the bank then sold its position to wm and you want to hold that you want to hold that ends the agreement to so you can pay w what what they sold to the bank included the banks with the bank sold its rights under the agreement which includes in certain mortgage notes and the sharing of the right to dispose with each which is one of the sticks off the right that is called but albert so they were sharing or contractual rights under that agreement it is the bank's contractual rights under the agreement were not cobol and assets they were its sole contractual rights which it then assigned is there any cloned property rico yes you are thank you and you have reserves some time yes it will hear from mister may i don't now nothing more nothing less i dish you is an agreement for the satisfaction of the judgement against one of the major and under that agreement signed by  thank you yes these four mortgage notes would be foreclosed on in a public thing that that property and kennedy in puerto rico after it is sold i to foreclosure sale the proceeds from that sale according to the letter of the contract will be given over to the debtor in this case the made us and the company then you can now in consideration be these we have reciprocal obligations under this contract causes of action and they work in the alternative now specifically as to the co owners redemption or rather evidently the district court dismissed particular in that case of the supreme court the ortiz roberts case talks about trusts i believe apple and discuss trust initially that case is not applicable that case deals with beneficiaries to a trust and this case we don't have a trust we have an assignment for payment and specifically your honour's as you were mentioning to the creditor the creditor sells liquidate the property gets with that money with those proceeds uses that to pay what's owed and if anything is there's a balance then they it rico if you and i own a business together as co owners co holders and you go to sell your half of the business for ten thousand dollars i've got a right to go to redeem it by paying ten thousand dollars bus expenses to that purchaser and getting the whole business myself correct as long as as long as you follow the  five your intent within ninety days yeah so so what i think what they're saying and i don't understand their argument as to the contract but i think what they're saying is well the bank also sold jewett's interest in the mortgage notes and as co which they deem to be co host or so they're basically saying the mortgage notes on the district action became like the business in the example i just gave you in the court below rejected that could you explain why that projection is correct i'm sorry your honor if i do also have have problems understanding the the argument raised by by adolescents to be honest with you but essentially that there is cannot be prone or ship in this particular case because number one the district court looked at the available  law there is no supreme court in point saying that an assignment for payment is analogous to coulter said there isn't what is out there is the spanish treaty that are regularly used by the supreme court a puerto rico and that the spanish there is not also your honors i believe the district court looked at the case of ortiz roberts and the supreme court there specifically said that a the ultimate purpose of a trust because that case was about trust and the beneficiaries to a trust the ultimate purpose there was to administrate the property for beneficiaries of the trust they were going to hold that property they were going to administer it they were going to rent the property out and benefit from that in  particularly case before the court in the assignment for payment the intent of the parties is to liquidate the notes they're not going to keep this these notes  hold them together they are going to foreclose on the prop on the mortgage notes they're going to take and liquidate those mortgage notes and if the property doesn't sell at public property if nobody buys it and will only hold it for twelve months so if the intent of the parties here is liquidation a property and payment that is it  i hope i answered your question your honor in their in their reply briefs they present they attempt to present and bypassed and completely put aside the determinations of evidence of material facts that are not in controversy reached by the district court and proposed the wrong and that is not the standard of review mention some evidence they don't cite to to the to the record they weighed the arguments right off the bat from the f not only that but so essentially what we're trying to say your honor is that the determinations of material facts reached by the district court should just stand as they are because they have been they have not been controverted or otherwise opposed in any manner or way finally as to the issue of but he raised it and then informative motion mortgage notes that was standing anything that his happen in this case when mister al meta hit interest in those four mortgage notes what w they together held property in common for the purpose of benefiting from it and so you're saying that what has strands formed that original mortgage interest from a redemption right into just a payment right is everything that is has happened since the f d i c got involved that back to that right you have to think about the parties and who the parties are here so that right he longs to band internally and externally you have a creditor outside and he has nothing to do with them what they gave to the f d i c is an assignment for payment which is totally different totally isolated totally independent from those that internal relationship between those parties so it wasn't really transform into anything they had just remains the same between themselves the f t c just came in and obtained a judgment against one and said you need to pay me you show you have no money you transfer you transferred your part of your assets or you attempted to transfer part of your assets to your brother francisco so now i'm going to involve presidents go i'm going to bring you together and i'm going to require that you assign to me the your interest sport where the where the money was transferred the with the treatises that have been cited or is it an exception or does it overrule them how do you view that case and in the context of what's been cited by the other side  have a couple minutes ok it is important for the court to be aware