the issue is whether or not there was sufficient proof of the fair market value with the property basically it seems to me that you're arguing that the district court wasn't entitled to rely on and find facts and accord and we have to determine whether it was clearly erroneous to find that the value was x that's only part of the standard review issue the review issues deal with whether quote made certain never densher every rulings those eviden rulings are determined by whether or not dunno vote whether or not they were appropriate the admission of for example the expert testimony of overawes did turman down whether or not it's an abuse of discretion here the issue of whether the what the fair market value would be when you get down to the ultimate issue is of course the clearly erroneous test here the problem is and it was a significant problem is that there is a critical date by which a deficiency judgment is determined on the rare result of a look and under arizona law that's determined as of the date of the sale and i respectfully request that i reserve five minutes for rebuttal and i would also point out to the amount of time i probably can't make every argument update essentially update his appraisal was permissible and in the industry and the extrapolation to me on the value on the condition of the property  know since i wouldn't say routine but certainly within within bounds that would permit the district court to rely on what's wrong with a given quarter number of reasons first one main reason is that the appraiser was the only witness there was no testimony at the trial in which the pelleas had the burden to show that the conditions that he assumed with extraordinary assumptions were actually in place on the date the critical day to the sale mr johnson also testified he personally couldn't testify as those conditions because he hadn't seen the property since i know that march eighth twenty eleven and then the case will respectfully and we've cited on page twenty nine recognises that an expert can't be the conduit for an opinion of another he relied on a report which he testified that he did not talk to the people that made it he didn't know who even made it he didn't know the qualifications of the people that made it he didn't know when it was regularly rely on documentation that they didn't prepare and where they don't even know the person isn't part of what experts yes but it's when the expert can rely on it but that is the court says and  ninth circuit takes that view in the paddock case which we say didn't in the point fifty nine acres of property case that that doesn't relieve the party that's presenting that expert of the burden of proving those facts when they make their case in chief and the defect here in the with the inherent problem in the case is they put on an appraiser who hadn't seen the property in a year who gave an appraisal underuse pappe for a different date on t an appraisal is a snapshot in time for a different day and he wasn't able to testify positively that the conditions that existed on the critical day were conditions that existed done the day of his report which he couldn't even do because even that date was the date that he hadn't seen the property but i have one other question that i'd like to ask you before before you run out of time that you want to spend your main argument and that has to do with the maintenance amount district court double that is on the cross appeal i see no explanation at all in the district court's decision as to why the court chose to double the amount that was testified to there which was i think three hundred fifty thousand dollars and the testimony was well it was actually more than that but the testimony didn't say how much more in the court didn't explain why it doubled the amount so that struck justifies yeah well you just explain the only way i can explain it is this and i'm just going to explain it without being too legal this was a situation in which the court was confronted with an appraisal that wasn't for the critical day so he even had to act as his own appraiser and try to figure out what the value was or why king solomon he tried to figure out how to spur the baby but then i remember the king solomon story is that's because king solomon didn't know in the beginning something because it didn't have sufficient evidence from the pelleas in the first place in order to come to and arrive at a correct amount and i would point out that in the court in terms of the case law and particularly if you look at the james wilson case which we cited the feldman case from florida which we cited all these cases recognize an appraiser cannot rely on the testimony of someone else for the club his family are probably the judge can follow up on what judge  was just asking you so when mr ruef testified that he made way over three hundred fifty thousand dollars in improvements to the property i'm just trying to figure out what precisely what improvements  were mr talking about there were substantial improvements for one thing one of the major improvements was the fence that was put which cost more than one hundred thousand dollars which was a security fence that was put around the property and it had security gate which vastly improved the rental value and i just point out that in appraisal for example and it's common sense to any homeowner you can go paint your house for one hundred bucks if you paint a candy stripes it's not necessarily going to increase the value know what would be other improvements besides the secure was substantial improvements they did work on the paving they did work on the landscaping they did work on the waiting there was a he testified at length about various improvements he made but the again the court made no explanation as to why it was accepting the testimony of mr johnson and also trying to justify giving a different number based on mr rufus testimony i may reserve you definitely a clearly erroneous standard and i agree with the comments of the corps that there isn't anything in the court's record to suggest that the court did anything wrong with regard to determining at the fair market value in adopting the opinion and report of mr johnson was was credible and reliable and if you look at the the under advisement ruling the court specifically acknowledges that the report opinion of mr johnson was eighty nine days prior to the trustee sale date but nonetheless considers it credible and reliable and i think that the parties all agree now there are some comments from opposing counsel that that there's there that the judge had to become his own appraiser but i think all the parties agree on the law the court must determine the fair market value as of a date certain in this case march thirteenth two thousand and twelve which have the trustee sale and the court under the statute is simply required to take all the evidence presented at court which was the testimony of craig johnson the reporter craig johnson and the additional testimony of mr  he spent way over three hundred fifty i agree with the court that those statements were made by mr the roof under oath and i would agree that those would be subject to a higher standard review and that's the reason why where they said to her stare of you i don't understand was subject to a more factual findings i think our argument in our brief i thought the do novo review was the doubling of credit no because it seems to have well pipe i should start speaking for myself only but it seems to me that the court's finding that seven hundred thousand dollars i was the amount that were rufus spent on the improvements repairs and maintenance is just as much a factual finding and as the appraised value i don't see why  s any less factual which doesn't necessarily mean it's not clearly erroneous but i don't understand why it is a factual finding because it's a value found from testimony and so johnson to be credible and therefore interpret the value was five point one and also he goes and talks about how he under the basin a testament of mr ruef i found that three hundred fifty thousand dollars of improvements were made to the property but i think it just as it would be a way to catchup to say there is no reasoning behind which anyway and just to follow up a little bit on that because you have to look to arizona law is that right that's right i mean it seems like there's an arizona court of appeals case see as a thirteen the ash one hundred one loop and this is seems like that sense for the principle that it will sustain a result anywhere between the highest and lowest estimate which may be arrived at by using the various factors appearing in the testimony here and wondering and likely to comment on since the final valuation of five point eight million was between rufus estimate and eight point two million factual basis or a legal basis in order to arrive at that value and when we filed a motion for thirty cation because when we look at the judge's under advisement ruling we couldn't see any legal or factual basis as to why the judge doubled this three hundred fifty thousand dollar amount for he made a reference that mr lewis testified that he made improvements of three hundred fifty thousand dollars i'm not sure i can't remember the court said you know over three fifty thousand dollars and then said  you know he was going to double that amount and that's so we have to determine if that i guess is fish and or if that's clearly erroneous so is that so illogical and implausible based on what was presented our position would be that would be illogical and implausible by because there's nothing in the court record that gets the court there i mean if the court makes the finding that the creature anticipated was five point one million dollars and that was credible and reliable and that the testimony of mr the roofer that he put in a fifty thousand dollars in repairs into the property i think that's that's your evaluation but if there is all of a sudden a doubling of credit or if the court would art because it's arbitrary it's not ok i think there still has to be some type of law or factual evidence for the court to make that determination  i know there was some discussion regarding the mr johnson's reliance on the the property needs assessment from two thousand and twelve which was nine days after the trustee come to its opinion and i think that's binding arizona case law authority the other case i would talk about on the same lines as the life investors insurance company cases versus horizon in that case the court allowed the jury to hear evidence that was of items that were done post foreclosure and it gave the jury the ability to enable or test the expert's opinion and determine whether or not the value that the expert came to was reasonable and reliable and that's exactly what we have here the property the sesame report was done nine days after the trustee sale provided mr johnson in estimate of what that specialist believe that the property needed in order to come up to market just like the appraisal that mr johnson did in two thousand and thirteen which wasn't done in connection with anybody geisha in but it just goes to show you like the dress first is the issue about the conduit testimony again while federal rules seven of three which applies the eels with the ability to for the expert to talk about what he has heard from others relied on in the pinions from others it does not make that testimony admissible it's only allowed not for the truth of the matter but for the expert to go ahead and talk about the basis of this opinion now it's clear under both of the evidentiary rules seven zero two seven zero three and of course the hearsay rules as explained in the james wilson case and particularly want to deals with valuation of property that an expert cannot be the conduit for the opinion testimony of another and in james wilson i'm just going to quote it said the architect could use what the engineer told him to offer an opinion within the architect's dismaying domain of expertise but he could not testify for the purpose of being for the truth of what the engineer had told him of becoming in short the engineer spokesman in the briefs you'll see even it's clear in the testimony of mr johnson he said he rel completely and totally on what he did in the using the act would tell a report that was improper we objected to it and it should have been stricken the second point we'd like to make is we move for an involuntary judgment or dismissal at the end of the case because at the end of the day the appraiser could not testify about the value on march thirteenth two thousand and twelve the critical date we asked him questions and most importantly he couldn't connect the dots from the date of his appraisal to the date of march thirteenth twenty twelve and that was the burden upon the apparently the case law is very very clearly talk about this can't do it even in the most gracious the cases they call the inability to of the to cross examine the party with that opinion either a hand off or a screen in the seventh circuit even goes so far to quote the situation of a ventriloquist in a dummy but the point is we were deprived at trial to question the truthfulness of a p n a report that the praise of totally relied on because they had no witness to testify about the facts of the condition i just last point out to the court he did not testify about the condition of the property even intrinsic condition such as rent roll rent what was going on physically at the property on march thirteenth two thousand and twelve in order to testify about comparable sales