you focus a little differently ok you need to convince us that judge kaufman made a mistake what judge cochran relied on was a state court had a trial i'm so i state court determined the fault basis that the debtor own the property and that the then wife owned it if at all and a resulting trust trustee kind of way and that was most of what she used to get to her decision so that's i mean if she made a mistake that's what i need to know why that was a mistake oh yeah we get to that also where you ought to get to it like right now because that's the point i was trying to be some statements of the trustees believe it shows that the not right for you can use the time anyway you want but what i mean we have to decide is did the court make a mistake ok ok argue the case and he did not stop it in the evidence that they're not here right why should we set aside this case and the judge johnson says that there is no evidence here to support that and they're not here plus  please the court richard burstein or david sorority chapter seven trustee allowed for this purpose you've got a default judgment involving someone who's not a not named party in the litigation makes it a little more tenuous  d wonder if you would address that issue i think that's the one issue that the court is would like to look at a lot more carefully  right the first is to look at california law and determine whether claim preclusion would be available in the california law whether the factors are satisfied and then the second is to see whether there's anything about the application frame presumed claim preclusion in the federal context that would be inappropriate or against public policy ok we've got this is a little different it is a default judgment which qualifies under california law and it is some folks who maybe didn't have all the notice they might have had about the action and then and a pretty question all of which complicate things a little bit and so that's where i think we have some questions where as the i think judge kaufman points out in her decision and you heard it a moment ago that the appellant the defendant had notice he look at the list penance that was recorded with regard to that state court litigation for purposes of finding effect but she looked to pretty and those i think are factual questions in terms of whether there is a sufficient nexus of interest and connection to the parties and she found factual finally i believe those were present and that there was issue preclusion with regard to the resulting trust judgment as it's described i think she was on solid ground i think she was appropriately  based on the facts in the record and i would just like to point out because i've lived with this case for some time  appellant said to you that he recited a series of the vance in the superior court many of which may not be in the record but he said they happened what's clear from all of this is they made repeated efforts to have this resulting trust judgement set aside and they failed and you also heard him say that they didn't seek review of the denial of their motions to vacate they didn't seek review in the state court system very made a decision he made  not enough couldn't afford it so now he's blaming his vacancy lawyer for saying file a petition not on the record hearsay but if we're looking at the and whether it's appropriate to apply issue preclusion these the appellant here is an experienced litigator in a superior court of the state of california that's clear in the record e file as lawsuits all the time often with fraud whom statements in them he admitted that on the record before judge hoffman so on the equities she was of solid ground on finding issue preclusion and in providing the facts support privity i don't believe that there is anything in this record that requires you to feel that equity has not been done the hell do we know from this record that the complaint in that action the state court action was served on the defendants and they if they say they were out of the country we know or it's  subsumed service requirement for a valid judgment and there we have evidence of that i think there are a couple of answers to that first of all if the default was improperly taken the remedy was to move to set it aside which they apparently tried to do and fail unsuccessful it's not for judge kaufman then to look behind the resulting trust judgement because if she did she would undertake impermissible role as the invited federal judge sitting  determining that and that lawsuit filed that to come into your own lawsuit is that different tell me later go ahead just so one is a valid judgments the first piece of history because even if there weren't proper service one could argue there wasn't about the judgment that to be the point right qualified and then is one bound to apply it that's a different question let's let's assume because i think that there probably is an element of equity judge kaufman elected to apply those that judgment here was she wrong was that abuse of discretion if she was vested with that discretion to come out as she did our answer is no would not be an abuse of discretion for her decide this case as she did because she had the opportunity as you have in a smaller fashion to see the appellant and i think she correctly came to the conclusion that they made some decisions about what to do they are properly valid they had knowledge they made choices about not seeking review and and i don't want to be harsh but the appellant is an individual who before the resulting trust judgment file a lawsuit in the superior court and said to the court that the deed from himself to shala for this property was a forgery and in front of judge hoffman when asked about those allegations he said those allegations were a mistake and in front of judge kaufman when asked why it was in the pretrial stipulation that it was admitted that they were in possession of property  exercise if if vested with discretion exercise their discretion to conclude that it was appropriate that this party is to fundamentally remain bound by that severe court judgment and i don't think there is anything in the record here that ought to convince you that she was anything other than absolutely right in that call well look let's make the argument for the other side are the witnesses here and i hearing i'm hearing testimony from the answer would be yes she's having a trial she's hurting the witnesses why would she need to depend on issue preclusion to make that to the judgment i mean why would you do it that way why would you just listen to the testimony and make your own judgment well the t parcel on sale and it was in his name it became convoluted when there was a deed from him to shah some years later transfer and title so that the first problem is what do we do with that he he helped us out because he initially alleged in his complaint in spirit court there was forgery and then he told judge kaufman no that was an error so judge contineu that shot had the property of some point and he did not so she had the evidence in front of our patent she just make findings based on the evidence in front of her because we needed to get the property in the trustees view to become an asset of the debtors estate not an asset of shala and it was the effect of the resulting trust judgment to declare that schollers interest was as a resulting trustee at an equitable interest in the debtor when she transferred tried to transfer the property so that as of the petition date is became a state as if we weren't scholl as lawyers well wasn't wasn't wasn't step one the settlement i mean it was a sum in two thousand and six or so right there provided that the  partnership was going to be dissolved and i was now a lot of you know what the partnership was but the property was going to be invested in if i remember correctly shala somebody oh and they ok thank you and and subject to a fairly significant claim by that the d from him a shot was forgery was settled right why that stipulated judgment that you referred to in writing and stipulated judgment it was provided that the property was debtors schollers and there was a money obligation right in favor of the appellant four hundred seventy five thousand dollars right and that's the last operative document befor  that was another item that we had to deal with and that we proposed to deal with it by a lisbon is issue with three in the reason for resolving being i don't know why they know all the facts here but i don't know why knowingly they put statements that is not matching the facts why they have to complicate the condition where they want where i believe i have to say because i cannot even go to my notes and the conclusion is this i bought back the property legitimately