the district court's holding in that regard so therefore this is not a circumstance where a borrower that owns the property feel to perfect a lien on that property for some technical money realized through that sale would allow the bank to be paid off on this particular low a decision was apparently made to not  but the banks loan would be paid off well yes your honor i understand that they make that argument but if you look at the g a o report the g a o work the scope of the jail staff had nothing to do with the obligation passed through to omega to be a state simply because the legatee inherited money that is the question presented in this case your honor there was no at council let's step back was at most the that the case should be remanded we we believe at least that they should be remanded we believe that the fact that there was no between this property and the transaction we only point out that to the extent the court reaches the atwood question which is this thing from the house i got it you've got an issue of law no nex can have a circumstance where there the the maker of the loan is a stranger to the owner of the property but the record has to reflect evidence in that circumstance that there was a benefit conferred upon the owner of the property typically your honor that would be a gift charge on mortgage or improvements made to the real property in other circumstances it could be the payment of outstanding taxes or insurance on the property so to say that there is no nexus with regard to the transaction that is true there are other circumstances or can be a lot in there is no case in massachusetts that finds an equitable wing charges him with one rd interest of the property he was able to our position is that he was able to to promise to repay the debt by encumbering his one rd interest much more than just his aggression crockery that's exactly right he did but we're not challenging right he is ability to have encumbered the other two thirds of the property but i think it's important to lived did not own any part of this property is not exactly correct in the district court did not find that the district court found that he wasn't able to mortgage his the property excuse me judges i apologize for interrupting the attorney's presentation i'm a i'm under the impression that there may be a problem with you tube stream and we may not be public right now so i am only interrupting to make sure that that we are in fact public i want to fight he could let me know that lucian did not own any portion of this property and it was no way connected to the harwich for property that that's just not so as the beneficiary of the nominee trust under massachusetts law lucian was the owner of the property for purposes of liability and and so because of that i will say that with regard to the argument that judge lynch pointed out that the shortened statue limitation should apply in this case at the time and passed away in two bag america may have thought it was a secured credit or but going back to the ridge no questions it was on notice that its lending was being arguing that out if we were to result of the one rd interest in your favor and there's actually a law against you on that point but if we were to result that in your favor then your brother is rock about the nexus you requirement and therefore a judgment cannot be entered as a bad if there was a one rd ownership interest though he took out a mortgage for much more than the one rd ownership interest that that is sufficient to supply the next i've not said anything about whether that argument is correct or not oh i understand that your honor and i'm sorry that you took it that way i was trying to respond to your question to say that if for some reason this court did find that then then it's our position that there is no issue of fact because the next question we turn to is whether the reasonable expectation of the parties had had an be paid off well it's not the legatee would pay it off it's that the property would have a lien on it that once sold the bank would be paid off the amount of the long and  judge to your question of earlier which is what exactly occurred with regard to the license to sell and why was the guardian ad litum appointed to evaluate what was in the best interests of lucy and with regard to that license to sell and in fact the report that the guardian ad litem issued for the next page for ninety four of the records she absolutely says as your honor indicated that once the proceeds are at at that we stayed in our record that your honor was referring to in our brief once the proceeds from the closing are received then the nine hundred thousand dollars will be returned to an estate and that the five hundred thousand dollars equity line from the horrors for property must be repaid so there was an expectation at that point in time by all of the parties including the court in terms of the license to sell that the five hundred thousand dollars equity line would be repaid from the sale of the bass or property your honor that judge lynch that her lawyer jennifer roberts sent the letters directly to wilmington saying that she challenged that the liberty of the mortgage and then it was there after the jennifer roberts luna's attorney problem here i don't understand why she has any obligation to object i think she had an obligation at that point in time to to correct the that makes the decision not to pay the mortgage and then her attorney who also advises the guardians the guardian john coniston not to pay the mortgage back the same attorney and it was ne he makes his own decision as the guardian right he makes a decision he says in his deposition testimony based on the advice of his counsel that's that's what he does who are also i'm sorry his counsel yes the guardian john kind of been hired jennifer roberts as the attorney for the guardianship the same attorney that was representing nina collide in the petition to point the guardianship yes well maybe she has a conflict of interests but how does that make as the g a l s lawyer your honor i'm sorry she was acting as the guardians lawyer the guard the conservator that was appointed over lucian's estate who was paying the loan off until she received the advice of jennifer liers lawyer now enough was had an interest in the guardianship because she petitions for herself in and listen objected to it that you know beyond beyond the point i think that my point was trying to show the court why there are reasonable expectations and i think it's important to understand that that's an objective standard not a subjective standard so even if you put it on no evidence other than about what the reasonable expectation the mortgage there's no evidence and the record that you put in as to the reasonableness of the idea or bank of america action wilmington's action i'm not sure what evidence there would be iran or a bank loans money to a person in exchange for a mortgage on the property whether a commercial bank has an expectation to be paid back the money that it loans the debt or away banks would check out whether the person actually owns the property which is being put up as security and apparently now no doubt was done here you simply rely on a representation made by a self interested person trying to get money from the bank who did own one rd interest in that property and perhaps  your bank i find that out at the time i know it didn't bother to look dead it pursue that the property before it pursued a deficiency judgment on the note so the reason to to take the bank for not pursuing its claim  bank of america thought it was a mortgage it was not a mortgage and when when you talk about whether or not the bank should be falter with regard to its decision its business decision not to pursue this unsecured debt in the context of the problem perceived one need simply look back on what due diligence they did to even give them the ability to assess whether or not they had an unsecured debt relative to college or whether they had a mortgage if they looked and they in the due diligence they would have determined they did not in fact have a valid mortgage because this property was all held in trust and the mortgages cell was purportedly granted by being an individual person so they took the business decision not to proceed with their pursuit and unsecured debt in the probate court at the wrong risk and they knew or should have known that they did not have the adequate analysis to make a accepted the district court's decision that lucian college did not have the ownership interest sufficient to play any part of the high risk work property ask lateral if it did then he is making a mortgage in his individual capacity would have been sufficient so to say that he had some oh i said would have an overstatement to say had the property he didn't have  now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court