have your legal education in the common law of the great states of texas and mississippi i have my legal education in the state of louisiana sandwiched in between which as i'm sure you know traces its legal tradition to a different and i think the difference between those two legal system which is which is the pivot point for the resolution of this can be summed up in an aphorism and i would and my argument would be something of an aphorism and i would say it this way that in the legal traditions of the french and in the civil code of louisiana that all frauds are based on a deception but not all deceptions of fraud and the judge magn in the common law i don't think it's the same standard and certainly not the same standard in the cases that have been decided by scores of bankruptcy courts throughout this country and in the decisions decided by this court most the most significant one being the coverage which i cite quote a lot on page one thousand and twenty what you need to do so so and in deciding the read edition playing but before we get to the all and i was wondering if you could address that that concern that appellate procedural six was not complied with where you have to set out the issues more specifically issue  take a notice of appeal if they can also appeal of the judgment that she rendered and that's what we're asking this court to reverse and to reinstate the judgment of the bankruptcy court and the findings that she made which are relevant to the ultimate decision of the case she understood was based on her finding that the hollers were guilty of an intent to deceive but the the intent to see was based upon the de incomplete disclosure of the extent of the prior repairs vision claim and not on a fraudulent claim based one nine hundred fifty three you have to prove the elements necessary to establish recovery under those two statutory regimes which is what they presented and which was what judge magner disagreed and did not find as a matter of fact that that the elements constantly in those state law claims have been met but that's different from do we have case one and we have some federal cases and some states and louisiana cation to take all the needed to intent to deceive no we have to have an intent to defraud i went through that in great detail in my in my in my briefing that it's that the intent to deceive is based is the is the misrepresentation element of it but it's that you don't you don't leave it there you use the deception that that that you identify has to be done for a specific and particular purpose which is you've got to either intend to cause the other side of the party a loss or to take an honest advantage and she found the other one of those elements here because they honestly believe that there was nothing wrong with the house and you might argue that maybe she should have found a false pretense at all to begin with the purpose is not to judge ability but that's that horses out of the barn and we're far beyond that point but there was no intent to harm the people who bought the house and that was a specific finding made a bomb just magazine view of the entire evidence there was an interior to ensure that there was a sale but it wasn't the well they go off they want to sell the pair they're not entitled to rescission under twenty five forty five which is the reservation article and they're not entitled to attorney's fees that's with them so they have another not going to be twenty five forty five here they're going to fraud and that's the finding that judge magnus said was absent in the proof of their case and that's the finding that judge morgan i say misapplied the standard review and there was no clear error and that finding in fact these facts and all that testimony and she so so i'm asking that you reverse judge morgan's ruling and reinstate judge might really she was the bank the judge she heard the case she was given responsibility make the findings she did her job acts of fraud but then you had to also prove a separate intent to defraud and the biggest case i cite in there campbell vs creditors the jury said yeah it was it was of it was a fraud or an act but he didn't intend to harm anybody  fix the number defects in the house so so she didn't fail to those blows the existence of a known defect at the time that she was selling the house what only thing that she failed to disclose was the product stamp of the repairs that she had made that the district court selected the wrong standard overview well obviously that's not the case because you'll have to read the district court's decision of what's to say to see that the district court was explicitly applying the clearly erroneous standard hollander said that the district court was substituting its own findings of fact for those of the district court and obviously that's not the case either because if you look at the district court's opinion it relies exclusively eleven judgments and now six appeals and almost all of their plea deal brief is dedicated to this explanation of what saudi has under louisiana law and in this civil tradition and i would say that we agree with them on what that definition of the appeal today is whether the district court selected and correctly applied the clearly erroneous standard of review and here that it did the district court said that findings of fact or viewed by the clearly erroneous standard conclusions of law are reviewed by the dyno of review standards but there's a twist that the district court identified and correctly applied in this case and that is that a district court may correct a finding  fact that is predicated on a wrong its conclusion of law and that's exactly what the district court did here when it held that the misleading disclosure statement and the omissions were not only intended to deceive but were also made with the intent to obtain an unjust advantage and it did so not by going back to the record and cherry picking and finding its own findings of fact it did so by a local exclusively at the findings of fact the bankruptcy court again in this instance however it is corrected that one factual finding that the misleading statements and omissions could have possibly been for any purpose other than to obtain an unjust advantage over the the district court held that the record before the back to court amply and clearly supported that there was an intent to obtain an unjust advantage that record and the bankruptcy courts findings established for example but as the district court boldly put it the bankruptcy courts repeated failure to make the appropriate determinations on the management now five years ago in this same case i was before the fifth circuit a different p circuit and i explained how this case then eight years old at that time had gone on far too long and in the district court's opinion that is now before this court today it held that it is hoped to finally end the litigation which should have ended years ago when we talk about the clearly erroneous standard we're talking about the district the application to the bankruptcy courts finding that the misleading disclosure statements and the intent to deceive could have possibly been for any purpose other than to obtain an unjust advantage over the city leaders the district court held that the bankruptcy court attempted to sidestep and we characterize and create a direct the conflict in fact finding the fact that and that is where there is the clear air this is not a case where the district court and the bankruptcy court took the same facts and viewed them differently this is not a case where there are two possible views of the same facts we're dealing with a clearly erroneous standard this is not the case of the district court going back to the record and trying to see what else could possibly give rise to fraud or cherry picking some facts here and some facts there and saying yep tape it together we've got fraud this is the district court using only those facts that the bankruptcy court held in its original memorandum tending to say no that is fraud and the reason is is if you look at all the findings of fact the bankruptcy court couldn't have better defined fraud and had it copied the definition out of the louisiana civil code or if you look at any louisiana cases that we cited to the course of this epic appeal those cases have said that fraud exists if it can be shown that the tiriel misrepresentations have been made by one party designed to deceive the other or stated in another way thought consists in material misrepresentations committed by one party designed to deceive or the other or maybe most relevant for purposes today we deem and unjust advantage to obtain a sale by a misrepresentation these are basically the bankruptcy courts very own words and they never retreated from any of these findings the district court hard upon these findings of fact to show that there was indeed see inter in this case and we speak of intent there is no such thing in the civil law here as a degree of intent under article nine hundred fifty three the critical inquiry is what is the object of the internet and in article nine hundred fifty three it's short it's only fifty one wor long there are only two possible objects fraud is a misrepresentation or suppression of the truth made with the intention either to say uptake in an unjust advantage over one party or b cause a loss or inconvenience to the other fraud may also result from silence or action and here we're concerned with that at that one object the intent to obtain an unjust advantage from one party over the other and here different companies and here the bankruptcy court appropriately did treat them as two different inquiries however we have never argued and the district court did not despite what the hollanders contend a quite a finding of not to start  y under five twenty three with the finding of fraud under louisiana law or vice versa in fact the district court expressly declined in its memorandum opinion to decide whether for all purposes and as a matter of the wall a finding of non what i do think is interesting is that they cite up to the fifth circuit decision a matter of martin to defy of what frauds that's a two thousand and four believe decision of this court in there the fifth circuit said as to what is required for a five twenty three determination that's falling within section five twenty three eighty two a same section we're dealing with here are debts obtained by frauds involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong successfully or what six years ago eight years ago now before the bankruptcy court that language is repeated over and over and over again in the fifth circuit in fact judgment about and you've joined  finding to fall under louisiana law because the district court to especially declined itself to make that determination either what we are contending is that the district court got it right when it found and adopted all of the bankruptcy courts very own findings of facts to determine that this wasn't even thought of under louisiana law the holidays contend that this is an issue of of character terminations that the expected court was in the best position to make the character determination bankruptcy court made a lot of character determinations in this case it did so when it held that the failure to disclose the alterations in the home were designed to see that it was designed to avoid a chill on the sale that they didn't want to scare off potential buyers that they didn't want to have buyers like to see julio's perform a more particularized investigation or an additional investigation simply put they wanted to command the highest price possible and attract the most buyers possible that's obtaining an unjust advantage that one of the points that the back to court harnessed upon to make that determination was not in the hollanders belief of whether they thought the home was repair it was in their failure to disclose the extent of the alterations in the home and one of the facts that the bankruptcy court parsed upon was the difference in the two disclosure statements that the hollanders made in this case when they first put their home on the market the hollanders hired a real estate agent and in fact it's in that very same month that sued their architect builder an insulation contractor but he in that disclosure statement it says that they had to replace the entire flooring system because  that issue that that disclosure statement gave an entirely different impression of the form problems than what was actually known to the hollanders that the hollanders knew there was a systematic defect that is the district court boldly put it back to court repeated failure to make the appropriate pardons the district court had all the facts all the law before it the district court was applying only and exclusively the from one division to another and as the case often is that the newbie judge gets a lot of cases that has to process the ones that have gone on for some time both both of those judges by the way have been judges that have continued to reverse the bankruptcy court over and over again the other thing that contributes to the epic appeal process here is the fact that we've up healed over and over and over and over again we keep on winning by the way because the bankruptcy court continues to come up with new reasons what is required to obtain an unjust advantage that the district court later determined was in the legal error and had to kick it back down and yet we've been popping up and down and up and down and up and down for years now and this case should  finding that there was an intent to deceive which was sufficient to constitute in her mind it false pretense which is a separate ground for non discharge ability under the bankruptcy code what is required for a finding of fraud well whether in the common law or in louisiana is something separate apart from your not knowing misrepresentation and when she was already man to make the particular finding that they were she was asked to make on the fraud question she refused to find that there was fraud because she properly interpret and apply the law of louisiana that in order to find a finding  you got to prove that the deception was intended to produce i harm formulated either in the as an unjust advantage or as an intent to cause a loss neither of which judge magner found either  misrepresentation of material fannie mae with intent to deceive which is a finding you agree with him a reasonable or justifiable reliance by the plaintiffs in resulting injury that's fraud under louisiana  contract law exists if it can be shown that material misrepresentations have been made by one party designed to save another and to obtain some unjust advantage or to cause loss wrinklies you know that's the but she did not find the other part for purposes of state law fraud on article nine hundred fifty three she did not find she never signed on and she refused to find on the basis of her evaluation of the credibility of those witnesses that they were motivated