yeah except for a few cases that i wanted to add here is where my arguments my briefs i was going to submit on the briefs and if there's any questions afterwards or something else hold us at two minutes later so that's my case that summary judgment should never have been granted on these interests are governed by state law this panel's has stated th circuit law is clear that when state law recognizes no such vested interested right bankruptcy law cannot find a property interest to exist but only a mere expectancy that's in r the contract is the referral registration agreement with that signed the petition by who it was signed by me it was signed by the buyers but neither of those are the party to be charged the window when  considerable emphasis on the e mail chain and there are their representatives saying that her signature would work right and her signature does not work because it contradicts the terms of the  agreement are you getting in a legal argument though why are you arguing that you understood that that detail of law and you made the conscious decision when you filed your schedules that because she did not have authority despite that e mail chain you understood that there was no no property of the state absolutely your honor i know and not only that i'm presumed to know that because there's a real estate broker i need i knew i need and accept its acceptance signature from the developer just to just to be clear did you make that argument that the bankruptcy court through that is a real estate broker he didn't know that yes i did you ok i don't know th good thing is convincing but i didn't even think was there frankly oh well yes so my in my argument in the memorandum of points and authorities and in my declaration i raise the issue and i also raise the issue perfect the contract i don't have a property interest i asserted those facts and you know this is still on top of the issue that these it specific facts came as a surprise to me it wasn't in the complaint i know you're your honour's it was the motion for summary judgment but it wasn't in the complaint has no no that has no relevance if i mean did you respond to that aspect of it i don't recall that being part of your opposition well it is a part of my opposition because i in my in my in my papers i said the course needs to continue this matter and that this was an argument the argument that i made so that i have the opportunity to discover when that contract was actually signed and i want to rewind to a point that your honour's it made regarding the e mail chain it should be noted that in the record supports me asking for a signed agreement and that's because of that very same concern the record supports me trying to get a signature from the developer now the e mail chain is misconstrued misinterpreted if you read what the sales my signature on there will do but what she means is it will do for now because we're in this process you later in the same paragraph of the e mail she's saying this needs to go to corporate it's there it says in the e mail chain if we are relying on an e mail it says well what needs to be the contradiction is to the terms of the green the honor the agreement said this is an integrated agreement that that controls and that's the point i'm trying to make here is  get back to california state law as a agents and real estate brokers we are trained by attorneys by our association to know that there has to be a perfected written agree is a fundamental point here though mr hamm that the only reason you got paid post reserve for rebuttal but you may want to go ahead and address the points that we're concerned about go ahead please i i want to just state the to the court i knew that i had an expectancy in receiving payments the the record shows that i don't deny that i knew that i had an expectancy but an expensive expectancy is not a property interest and even if we're going to go into of property interest your honor yes and you think that you're entitled to make the decision that this dime think this is an expectancy is nothing else that tends to show intention which is the one thing i think you've got an argument about here well it and i'm taking the strong position your honor because i've researched and i'm trying to find anywhere where in expectancy is required i would look at the form again to look at the language but then attack it for the next level i apologize for interrupting but it's clear that afterwards you got paid and you got paid for pre partition work so that it was rooted pre partition if not all exceedingly most of that was property of the state why was it never voluntarily disclosed post addition that opens up a pandora's box here because how it must work do i do that i did preposition i'm doing all kinds of work under next expectancy or i believe all the commission cases and tax refund cases that was that conclusively they do so establish that conclusively because there is a contract so the question isn't whether there was work i don't deny that there was  work it's what are you working for because don't isn't it true that i and people like me were for it we prospect for business all the time and there's no contract there's no entitle me there's no interest i was doing work at the same time for probably fifteen or twenty other potential clients but i didn't have a contract for them either but the petition does not ask for my expectancies or the prospect thing that i do i did have an expectancy but i still doesn't  law and i don't have a cite for you now but that would refer to and that would apply to an attorney but not to a real estate agent because with an attorney for example there could be some kind of oral argument that the services were were to be provided a certain rate and the services were provided and that's all documented and you can't get out of that because you're relying on this oral argument here we state law precludes oral arguments there or services that are done without the acknowledging the existence in their office form and that's why the emails all are that would be that's where i think the court went wrong because the that is not extrinsic evidence it doesn't support it doesn't even support the terms of the agreement it conflicts with their terms of the agreement the agreement itself states in clear language that this document only sets forth the terms of the  integrated agreement but you understand the problem here is that obviously williams never contested this you are arguing against your own self interest here that that's that's a large part of the  problem i don't or aren't you are you arguing and making a very technical point that i do not have to disclose twenty some one thousand dollars that i received post vision because the misfit m cool argument presented on summary judgment after the fact i don't understand the question your honor where where is the the record that shows your concern and hesitation acknowledgement that you're doing all of this work and sending the emails and in the loop even though you have no contract where no right to payment at that time again real estate agents and brokers do all this do this all the time however let me add t declaration of michael easter shows and my declaration also show that we were friends i told him that regardless of compensation i'm going to help you guys in this house it's in the record it's it's there because i think payments you're sending e mails saying i want to make sure i am a comes to me directly and why wouldn't i well well because you don't have a contract you say it's inconsistent with the contract when there wasn't a contract yet well i'm saying you know i don't know what you're saying that at the date of bankruptcy i had no interest because the contract said i had no interest i'm saying the contract didn't exist that's all there was no there was no perfect agreement california state law requires a perfected agreement subscribed by the party to be charged that is williams holmes i knew i didn't have that but why would i stop working for that expected expectancy it's it's in my nature to want to get paid i continued working for it the question is did the courts find proper properly find as i  requested a property interest that could be included in the bankruptcy estate i was not an expert on bankruptcy law at the time but i did no real estate contract i understand and we thank you all the way through your fifteen minutes and pass make the argument that ex con expecting mr young to manage that when the bankruptcy court did here was really not a proper agree on summary judgment on the theory that the word credibility is use various times within her decision and credibility is certainly can be weighing up an ends or weighing the likely truthfulness of a witness so can you address rewind the court in your mind didn't stray from the normal summ judgment of course your honor if the panelists take a look at the transcript so it is clear that the reason the trial court ruled the way that it did was it because he determined that the debtor was attempting to manufacture judge made a comment about the fact that the doctors arguments were credible he made the exact same arguments for the trial court that he just may hear today that there wasn't an agreement and he didn't know if you'd ever get paid he didn't believe he was going to get paid and then  well that is not enough to stave off for summary judgment but if there's other exhibits authored by other people partly don't you have to weigh evidence to consider those against the debtor's current declaration one of the cases that i pointed out your hon 's not reasonable for the court to assume the truth of that position and that's what we think that's what the judge did because she does use the word credibility which suggests that she's weighing something i care what you i hear what you're saying there is a standard out there that says look bit harder here i think because she does use the we're going to build is if she's treating mr him as a witness you know as opposed to declaring who's got a declaration and there is trying to contest some of these points so how do we get over that your honor i think that's  fair point and i'll concede that the judge's language may not have been perfect and that's why a point is core to the case that the jones case they came out of the fan circuit one of the issues that is this and in front of the court here is this is not a lawyer who is making bad arguments on behalf of our clients mr indicated by the fact of mr ham getting to the lectern making is arguments and referring to factual matters there's a danger there of accepting that argument as evidence at argument your honor here's here's another key point when the debtor prepared his record for this appeal he didn't provide any of the exhibits that were attached to his own declaration and the reason he didn't do that is because i pointed out in the m s g hearing that many of those exhibits directly contradicted what he said in his declaration so his strategic omission of those exhibit is established as one of the points that i made during the summary judgment here and you can't manufacture in his from his own client michael easter which was before the court and he stressed declaration absolutely says that there was an agreement so there is not the developer that's true your honor and that's the problem here i think i'm concerned th step process here one there was no agreement and those e mails mr easters comments all establish for purposes of summary judgment that there was an agreement but that's not the fundamental issue the issue is whether he fraud gently failed to disclose that that's the next step and that's the next step the judge took by saying those e mails your contradictory statements all that means you  this honest and i had five fraudulent intent isn't that the problem no your honor and the reason why and then judge frater let me go back to a point that you raised when you're asking a question of the sophisticated legal question on which there are numerous cases explaining that which take a lot of reading to understand that's true your honor but i think that's also why and she's telling him of my signature is good enough and that's not where it is she goes on to say and i quote when the home closes the ham team will receive four percent and that is exactly what happened on the basis of that e mail she knew forty e the question is when it was in really good debtor is the one who signs in the referral agreement which ultimately gave rise to the commission that he received he signed that and his client signed it forty days before he file bankruptcy that he had referred he had signed a referral agreement with williams holmes even earlier back in march but this all goes to my point that this establishment you believe you are correct that this was clearly property estate should have been disclosed of indifference to the truth i mean it sounds from what the debtor is saying now he thought about this pretty carefully and i think he was wrong but he sounds like he thought it through a couple responses to that judge farris st and as i pointed out to the trial for me in my reply deborah's claim that he wasn't acting was fraudulent intent was totally just proven by all of the independent discovery creditor serves a bunch of requests for admission on him and he falsely again you're lying that you're making a joke wrong he stated stuff that was not correct therefore he's dishonest therefore he must have fraudulent how and how do you establish as you know undisputed at the time there differences in mr ham's favor he he did have a believe that this was not a property of the state then there is no there's no reason to report your honor that in his favor that were inconsistent with nicer law and some of his own he said of its nd law goes to legality again that goes to whether it is proper to these day he said you know generally construed if i got it wrong i thought about it i just  he signed all of the recognitions that he was going to be aware of all the bankruptcy requirements to disclose what he is and is not either on or as i mentioned it reckless indifference to the truth is sufficient under control found that in debt could be excepted from discharge before an anti static judgment if it was based on willful and malicious misconduct and my analyzed in both my motion and in the brief how all of those factors that the ballot looked at result of his conduct and he argued it and he's going to argue i'm sure in the end of that he thought even when his lawsuit or that he didn't intend to harm the creditors by such an admission is not required under th circuit authority the then the of inter county superior court when in grants of the creditors and motion specifically found that his lawsuit should never have been filed it was based on a bitter and utterly unnecessary family court litigation that had been going on for all of the other courts after you file your honor the the only point that i can make in response to this is that the court properly considered the entirety of the record before it when it ruled on mr hammes exhausted his time the matter submitted i'm going to say something now i'm speaking only for myself and i've never done this from the bench in the back before this is a challenging case you should really talk to each other about getting this resolved ok are you thank you very much court's in recess