good morning let me start by introducing the panel i'm judge farris from the district of hawaii to my right as judge brand brandon from the district central just of california by left as judge gannett from the district of arizona each side will get fifteen minutes to appellant wants to reserve part of that time for a bottle i'll ask you when you st start out how much time you want to reserve for a bottle we give the parties fifteen minutes because we've found that's enough time to present these cases if you use the time wisely please be aware that we are thoroughly prepared we've read your briefs we've read the bankruptcy court's ruling we've bed read the bankruptcy courts record we've discussed the case tentatively amongst ourselves so you don't need to tell us everything that's already in the briefs or in the record it's probably wisest to choose a small number say three or four important points you want to get across to us make those points and more importantly listen carefully to whatever questions we might have and answer them this is your chance to have a conversation with us and that's the best use of your time with that we can go ahead start with you please call st case then  good morning mr crime would you like to reserve some time for a bottle yes your honor i had like two years or four minutes please four minutes ok please go ahead good morning your honour's just wanted to highlight a few important points that i had referring to me the debtor and i and you know he own half of that and it's in the nd paragraph off that and to the effect stating that you know he is entirely you know entitled the asset but then eventually into forty seven the judge without there's not for nothing there's that's one thing so in other words the claimant here which is the state of case it trumps the state law and it's right there in the idaho constitution also that the they will follow the laws of the united states and there is no authority started from the supreme court of the eighteen the judge did get back into the case and the judge did you know rule on it and in order to do that he used the idaho law over the  or anything i cannot get delve into what they should or shouldn't have done but there was a failure there to do anything because they may have had something over one hundred thousand which is the idaho state exemption for f to forty seven which is the july two thousand nine hundred case so the other contention i have is you know the standard of review that i was presenting to the bankruptcy care you know the probably biggest entity of multi billion dollar entity in the state of idaho whereas i'm just an ordinary working man you know struggling to pay its bills and i work you know seven days a week just about in a restaurant in case because they knew in two thousand and seven that this that this is adamson was coming to me you know was making medicaid claims is that what you're saying today yet not only in two thousand and seven ma'am i'm saying all along filing when i filed my petition and she filed for actual benefits and receive benefits then the bankruptcy was opened it was up to incumbent on yes i'm saying that they should have  resources that do they're in fact similar to the point where they did it in two thousand and sixteen they could have acted in two thousand and thirteen or before correct is did i is that did i answer your question ma'am yes yes good morning ron i don't really have a lot to say that's not in the brief i know that mr chrono feels like he didn't get his day in court that he didn't have adequate time to argue but at all that is not  true the judge was clear in his abstention order that he allow the state court to hear the real property dispute between the state and mr caronna and the state court heard that and decided against him and since then  toronto has been unhappy with that decision and his appeal the state court both to the state supreme court and through the bankruptcy that you have before you i think the judge has tried to make it very clear to mr that he abstains because he thought the stake or would be in a better position to hear that real property matter no matter how long how often he says that mr kronk refused to believe that if you have questions of me let me know well i guess the question that i have is why what mr kreiner asserts that the state was aware of these issues during the bankruptcy and before the bankruptcy that  him was obtaining medicaid benefits and that at some point the state was going to have the right to pursue her assets for recovery of these so why didn't the state act and what and should the state have acted during the bankruptcy  state law we cannot file a lien or recover until she passes away and so we have to wait until she we don't go looking for her assets regardless there were a series of transfers between the parties and and even if they were properly recorded the state would not go in the through those just simply cannot go through all the medicaid recipients and search for their assets  intil at the time to collect which is at the time you are you are using that as a practical matter you couldn't couldn't do that or as a legal matter you're not allowed to try to challenge transfers until after their beneficiary passes it's a legal matter but also a practical matter is that we don't go and ask that but also legally we can't we can't go collect that or place a lien to legally we're barred from doing that practical wise i think the department theoretically could track them to be better prepared when the people died but we just don't do that well in reality i mean there may be other assets you wouldn't necessarily need to pursue fraudulent transfer actions once the person and forty one which was their motion to consider and i'll just need these three or four lines it says however and it's already moving the quarterly analyzed that there is interest in the property of the time you filed this petition and found that he had one half tenancy in common interest in the property having already decided that there is interest in the property at the time he filed his petition the court is not persuaded by the state's argument so it was a pre partition  mr freeman our just represented was in our great as what the court found the court did find that i own one half of the property the other point that they have to wait and all that it doesn't come with any  just a practical matter are the way they should do it or could have done or maybe ifs ands and buts but there is not legal authority and that is state law because mr freeman are pursued this action in state law in state court of idaho exemptions were absolute he may have had claim over one hundred thousand exemption that i have personally my purse my homestead exemption they could have gone over that they had a whole slew of remedies but on a property or an automobile or anything where the lien has recorded the actual amount me where even the person you know it becomes due the note becomes due in this case it would be the passing of the person but nervous and the intent and the recording is done when that is accrued so the in my humble contention the the that accrued or the are the claim accrued when they started