we see them all the stuff and we've asked them in effect to either all i want to do this or take it themselves but i think they have the power under the bankruptcy code to you know just say forget it we don't want it or whatever they do  got the federal debt collection practices act claim and briefly i'll just tell you that in this case susanna turner has no kind of business court judgment of any sort against her there's an underlying judgment not just that but when they file a new matter against susanna turner for chrysler convenience we're saying that case involves an agreement regarding the personal family home the whole case  my impression was that the law was very clear on this that whatever debt you have needs to be in the line of a consumer debt not a commercial debt or not a tort and i don't really just cute that whole point the question here is when you have a subsequent  second action that is fraudulent conveyance and the conveyance in question is the family dwelling and that circumstance were saying you do have that personal consumer nature of it literally by the statue's terms so that was let me tell you the transaction we do have a transaction that's what i'm trying to tell you ok the transaction is a contract between dr turner and susanna turner by which he gave her one hundred percent of whatever interest he had  action no doubt about it that this one which is primarily for personal family or household purposes i'm reading from the statute six hundred ninety two eighty five well this was a transaction literally involving the personal house interest to his wife so that it was totally community property and then he divested himself of his community property interest and i'd like to point out he did that in one nine hundred ninety two when before that tort claim came up anyway i just want assure you all that we don't deny the transaction requirement that it's got to be a personal thing i don't have any doubt about it i would like to say there is no case out there that says a fragile conveyance of the family residence does not come with that there just isn't one i also point out the section they got to pay over the whole house and does that that's like the core of family dwelling i would also like to point out that i always understood it that these statues were mediocre to be given broad expanse of treatment i think there's cases of talk about that bass  one to get to a check because a bad check wasn't put in the statute either and it kind of expanded it i think part of this is a question of do you want to expand it to include a project convenience or do you want to restrict it so that it's not but we think we are literally on all with the statute even if it may not have been intended by congress congress didn't say no or yes to this they mean just not thought of it i don't know but anyway that's our main point on that i'm you know i don't really dispute the issues that you point out you're you know that i right now i just have a nice circuit case cal arc architectural building that says that they don't have to have multiple victims the district court was calling other ninth circuit precedent that says you do i cited eleventh circuit president other circuit precedents that here you do have continuity because you have all kinds of stuff going on it's you know it's we have to prove non sporadic activity that's what we're saying and this was definitely all you know they were doing all kinds of stuff very methodically very continuously in fact i'm sure would have continued i collect an activity going on and suddenly the response from the judgment debtor who is faced with what is no doubt vigorous enforcement effort designed and intended to get a judgment pain because we have to accept the fact are alleged as true whether or not they are true so we start with that premise but it is still garden variety judgement in for some activity and the california state supreme court has spoken on this issue and it is sa in silver that abuse the process is very limited if not extinct in that context because the underlying conduct is privileged and so this is what about transaction this is a transaction between a creditor and a debtor that is concerned with consumer household of personal goods here what we have is the underlying debt which is a tort judgment business court judgment that's the underlyin underlying non consumer debt but it's a d b a do i then have to comply with the validation and verification requirements under f t c p s a how does the practitioner of the collection agency which legitimately is trying to comply with f t c p who knows when the claim comes down that it's not a consumer debt and then how do they implement the process of collecting the debt in practicality when these claims come into the collection long term we identify the cl consumer non consumer and you have to comply with the c p m the consumer claims with those requirements of the act validation verification i'm not suggesting that in a can in a commercial context that there are abusive conduct is somehow allowed but the question takes me back to my initial point that's a question of the limits on federal the role of the federal courts in these types of proceedings and here what this particular plane to those trying to do is use the federal court thwart the efforts of the judgment creditor to collect and that's all that's going on here and that's evidenced by their own briefs because what they show in their briefs is that cook was driven out as a drug judgment creditors lawyer primarily because of this lawsuit because it inherently creates a conflict of interest between the collection lawyer and their client and so what happens is if this court publishes an opinion  implicated that d c p is now implicated in this context then what happens is we have a floodgate of litigation from judgment debtors who seek not to validate rights but simply to thwart the process because what those facts and determined to problems with this case on federal question jurisdiction after the c p a doesn't apply because it's not an underlying consumer obligation you're representing all my point is this we have to focus on the federal question aspect of this because that's ultimately what takes us out of state court where the california supreme court has determined what is the proper protocol for resolving issues like th types of claims adjudicated is in a state court proceeding so all this to cook did was get a court order serve a court order somebody responded to that court order by in her pleading funds it was didn't defend allegedly because they got paid so i don't see where the harm is and so you don't really get to continuity until you get past whether or not the underlying acts were privileged and they are under stil every single judgment debtor that this law firm comes into contact with is somehow subjected to the kind of conduct that is alleged in this complaint which is which is demonstrative of my suggestion that what we have here is a last ditch effort bankrupt debtor who was fraudulent transfer their property to avoid the payment of a just debt by eliminating the only person that might possibly have helped the judgment creditor see the substitute lawyer and that was  cook who was fighting to recover on a million dollars judgment so i'm with that i'll leave it in your hands and i with this gone there is a limit to the role of the spectral courts in matters of state court judgment flooded with litigation and we can't allow that to happen because the state court properly handles those matters and i'll leave it with you on that note thank you all right thank you and we thank both council in this case that submitted for