parcel of property we refer to in the brief as the new river property my client is b f o w b f o w purchased the property from the bankruptcy court paid one hundred twenty five thousand dollars out of that money the debtor in this bankruptcy case has a claim for half the money and are dispute concerns the other half of the money what we're asking the courts to do is to look into the record and and look into the decision of judge marl he looked through the record and he found that in a prior case which is adversary eighty seven one ninety nine that there was a judgment by judge wealth and that would be exhibit number seven and what judge marler said as he looked at judge wolf's judgments he looked at the transcript and he concluded that the other half of the property which was owned by either mr spain or mr string him that that half of the property was transferred to the debtor to norma hertz and that was his decision and they stand that decision judge marler determined that the government that have been the case if the claim that was the subject of the adversary action for five thousand dollars due on a promissory note there was a claim of mr spain for five thousand dollars do you want to promissory note that he gave up in the settlement and it states that in the judgment and but the claim is only for five thousand dollars so you tell me the property was sold for one hundred twenty five thousand so why wouldn't the answer be if if the claim was legitimate it's simply give five thousand dollars out of the property unrelated to this five thousand dollar claim but as i understand it it was mr pays who received five thousand dollars from string them or spraying after a fire at the lumber yard and that the note was supposedly secured by a lien on pieces half interest in the property that you know and that claim was given up in this quiet title proceeding so why doesn't mrs for still have a half interest in the property which and the word out is not written opposite if yes is transferred but so you know i don't i'm having a lot of trouble seeing how one can go behind that clear order the same footing that it's being urged now that is that he wasn't really a party and he couldn't even have any interest in he abandoned that appeal and so to me the judgment is now as finalist can be whether it was right wrong or indifferent ok let me agree with you judgments final i'm not disputing that ok but what i'm saying to you is i'm i'm different it is a question of law you have to look at the judgment and i disagree with your reading on its face and let me just tell you why a judgment can have many parts judgment can say things that are crossed out or not crossed out those all go to her confirmed in her not awarded to her also it says it incorporates the transcript also i have you read the transcript it's really clear and let me tell you judge marla's says that this is this is what i disagree with in his findings he says all the parties agreed unanimously norma her gets one hundred percent read and then he cites the transcript yes and i cited for you the transcript where it says the attorneys are reading into the record it you see the problem is that judgement was appealed and left intact i'm with you but as stands the judgment still only gives norma her half because the judgment says this is a judgment and it says it incorporates the sentiment right into the record and the judge hand wrote as amended by mr paste and what was the handwriting of mr page he wrote a half spain it was written on to the attachment but what does one hundred percent of the property that's what this court judges maybe had said and i refer that to you to say look the ninth circuit on the appeal they did not to turn and that spain has zero interest in the property if it's ok i'm just using you you say ignore the it stands i'm asking you to interpret as a question of law interpret the judgement didn't and interpret in the judgment read the transcript that the judgment relied on where the transcript specifically says attorney will first spain keeps ha interest in the property and it says in the judgement we incorporate the transcript it says in the judgement we incorporate what spain wrote what pace wrote on to the on to the document and paste wrote half of thing in and i'd also have you look at the language that you're relying on  that that says norma her got it she only had half to begin with she didn't have a disputed claim to the other half and then it says it's confirmed to her as her soul and separate property i would expect different language i would expect it to say we newer property that's an uncontested right in the settlement which happened the day after spain's one half was given up in the settlement and it was the statement incorporates the settlement agreement with the notation one half but the specific transcript will tell you that mr pace put that on the on the document and the transcript well also tell you that that notation is meaningless because it does not contain the three attribute mr slater about your fifty two where mr wolfers explains to the court essentially what the effect of the judge of the settlement agreement is but your honor in that regard i testified at the trial in this matter right about that and i have no memory i understand of this in the french script we are in a courtroom about four times as big as this one and i did not agree to that i don't even think i d i don't have any memory of him saying that now they let me explain that the judgment that was presented and that was appealed right specifically sa claims five thousand dollars is owed him because he has a lien and he goes into bankruptcy court to validate that lien against five thousand dollars he also owns one half of property specifically in the settlement because we were settling as the court determined he was settling his claim we were settling all of the claims for all of the property including we did in fact and this court has held it was the decision in eighty seven one ninety nine we were settling global matters when we entered into that settlement including any claims to any of the properties and that's what the judgment says awarding all of those properties versus hurt allowing the dismissal of all of the claims for the specific purpose of ending what was then twelve years of litigation with what i call the alphabet companies of mr pace who in fact were one ninety nine both to the back and this court and this court determined that his claims were system that he had agreed through mr pace who was his agent who was admitted or who it represented to the court in a bankruptcy are you saying to me that the creditor who has a claim when he goes in to have the claim settled in bankruptcy his fifty percent ownership of the same property is regarded as a claim which he is tendering required title purposes in order to get his fifty five thousand dollars pay no i'm saying to you that at the close of the first day signed in the settlement agreement i don't think so mr pace signed for mr spain's or when mr spain appealed that matter of the authority to this court and this court rejected that argument where is the language of convenience of mr spain's fifty percent interest in the new river property it is contained in the judgment and order of april third one thousand nine hundred ninety and which  the exhibit that the settlement agreement contains want to have spain written on it by mr pace but not agreed to by anybody because of the fact that it's not agreement server clearly woes and the court below found in eighty seven one ninety nine you guys find end in eighty seven one hundred nine and the bankruptcy court in this trial found that only if it was marked out was designated an out and initial mr face and mitchell and signed for mr spain mr spain knew that the day of the settlement never has raised himself the not looked at the original judgement to you will not find what was required to take it out i'm looking at excerpts of record page forty and it has a number of strike it has a number of what appear to be and mischel at various places including initials that are immediately of of and immediately below the notation past spain and i'm wondering why that doesn't come or with what the court order with regard to handwritten changes that the initials are for the properties above and below and not for one half  order in judgment of a different bankruptcy than wasn't he looking at the prior bankruptcy court proceeding when yes he reviewed the entire administrative and adversarial eighty seven one ninety nine thousand indicated so your argument is that we have to go with is factual determination as to what the first bankruptcy judge and the entire three days of trial was factual trigram ok thank you twenty eight and six twenty nine are those pages that i was referring to and i'm referring now to page six forty look it will sorter where he says that he incorporated this paste thing that has spoken language and counsel says was written by mr patient agreed to by no one i would submit to you that it was hand written to the judge that to me has special meaning because you turn these types of things to the judge and they can write it you know they were thinking about the case when they wrote it