the matter of thomas reveals selling thank you thank you the first issue that i have and it really is unclear is when we had the trial we conducted the trial two days after the trial was over and the judge for really issued his judgment but prior to the formal judgment being entered there was a motion to amend the judgment that matter while we while the matter was appealed to the bankruptcy appellate panel it was then remanded prior to oral include that motion or the outcome though the findings in that i think are relevant in the trust the contends that the memorandum of decision in those for the findings would be encompassed in this appeal as well didn't agree with that right they didn't the only only judgment that they considered was the original one that was correct your honor and they did that because the appellant before the vapid not amended her appeal that is correct with that work to the detriment of the trustee well it did at the back that's correct though though we can hand and the purpose of the appeal to this court is that regardless of memorandum decision coming in that i think the findings of fact in the conclusions of law that the trial court found are sufficient to have entered the judgment properly of the bankruptcy court which means that the first ones of the second one both but definitely the first one by itself if that's what we're only dealing with the judgment entered on i believe it was january twenty second and i thought you were a one that know the oral one was the finding  factory view the the earlier findings isn't isn't that what with the reversed yes and you're saying that even the earlier findings are sufficient to justify a judgment for the trustee correct your honor as well as the second ones which are even more favorable which trustee correct a lot of app didn't consider that that is correct and that being said with regard to california civil code section thirty four thirty that he wouldn't have the ability to pay at the bankruptcy appellate panel the bankruptcy of hell a panel found that there was no evidence of the intent by the debtor whether he had the ability to trust the argued at trial that the statement of financial affairs and the schedules of the debtor which were entered and filed with the court which commence the bankruptcy case under penalty of perjury provided that the evidence in there that he had no in some of the two years part of the bankruptcy case that he did have those creditors that existed or the one particular creditors that entered that existed on or before the date of the transfer that there was no ability to pay the debtor was unavailable at trial i had no way of getting any contact through him the only thing we had was a address that he had at the date of the patient and the defendant at the trial was the mother of the debtor and she didn't have him after a while or she didn't have any contact at the time and i think the record provides that light and she shows up later on when manned correct correct the remand from the  with the motion to amend that is when he does show up your pictures of out of the blue in the courtroom i don't know if it was out of the blue to me i was intending him to be there at the hearing but yes he was there and at that point the trial court five page fifty four and fifty nine it is lines that starts at one fourteen and this is the transcript from the trial and what it says is that the statement of affairs indicates that on may thirtieth the debtor was insolvent within the meaning of that term because the evidence shows by his own statements that he did not have the ability to pay that creditor or for that matter any other creditors  may thirtieth date because he had stated under penalty of perjury in the statement of affairs that he for the last two years prior to the filing of bankruptcy case which was february twenty eighth two thousand and one that he had no income from their business or from  and that's clearly stated on the record the trial court goes on so the evidence is shown by his own statements that he had a creditor that he was he did not have the ability to pay creditor on that date and that he was insolvent at that date payments unless money was either gifted to him or he incurred further that to get money to pay that other creditor so i believe that the intent is inferred from those facts which establish that because he had no income it would be impossible for him to pay debts as they came  that was with regard to thirty four thirty nine zero four b two with regard to thirty four thirty nine zero five the trust the i believe also prove his case on that regard as well  trial court there was a transfer by the debtor i don't think any that's the spirit in there it was fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made there was not reasonable equivalent value and that is correct that is correct and the hard part that that the trustee and i have with this is that this doctor was unavailable and because he was unavailable you what i'm worried about is just try for a practical problem how much how much is there to eat into before we sort of my paying for wires well you know i will say that in this particular case i'm a significant amount obviously h as been generated in these because of the deals that of now risen to this one circuit and i will say and i know that the trust the will will support me the trustee would probably take the same position that to the extent this has become an administrative leave insolvent case that there would be a distribution to grabbers that the trustee and my firm would take the position that to the extent we need to cut certain of our fees in order to allow that distribution we would do that and i'm sure the u s trustees office would ask us to do that and we would because in this particular case we do believe that there was that transfer in the property should have come back ok the really one of the of income there is a showing of significant more debt than what was originally provided in the schedules since they were in financial affairs so i agree with you if the time there was there was trust contender there's probably fifty thousand dollars in equity in the property and based on the original schedules there people appeared to be about thirty thousand dollars in debt that was all so based on that it appeared to be had it was resolved early on it would have appeared to be a surplus casework who had been able to pay all the creditors in money would have gone back to the doctor so obviously over the last four years there's been an increase in value in the property creditors that were prejudiced and harmed by this counsel you have exceeded your time that we use a lot of questions i would like to reserve just a minute because i do want to make one other point to this court regarding the decision of the  vortex fishing systems it's seventy seven f thirty and fifty seven and i think that the site to that was in this place that was a case that involved an involuntary bankruptcy petition and in that particular case there were creditors a petition to commence the involuntary bankruptcy petition and bankruptcy filing and what happened is certain of those creditors decided we want to withdraw our claims and that then resulted in their not being enough that particular case the analysis was required under eleven u s c section three zero three and one it wasn't talking in relation to the california frontal transfer section or it wasn't talking to section five forty eight of the bankruptcy code for fraudulent transfers it was talking about what is needed under an involuntary bankruptcy petition so i think that they were misplaced in that decision in citing for that that statute and i think that the trustee his case actually and to the extent that is necessary that the supplemental memorandum provided i think there are further compounded or nothing compound but further extended the trustees points and that support thousand after filing after the transfer pardon me the the debtor paid paid someone with a seven hundred i would infer ease pain now i think it's almost using the technicality to say have income he's not starving to death you have a roof over his head he uses transportation we can assume so that smaller debt doesn't show he can pay it in fact he did it's almost a if you get to just the logical conclusion of what the fraudulent transfer acts are usually really get to and that is the person who's not paying his bills so obviously the creditors are going to be after him so he disables himself he transfer out of reach that those two things show the intent well that's not here i don't think anybody was thinking you know with those thirty hundred to go to pack bells a lot with the house out of reach so just a logical conclusion was there wasn't intent she really be on notice to address that or not it's pretty unclear is that a decision that's on appeal or not if she's told that you only get you didn't do it right you didn't file an amended appeal so was didn't write any of the briefs as far as i know i've called for oral argument and i know the bab said they weren't going to consider the transfer of an exam asset but i'm very i forty four and five forty two it wouldn't really matter but if you once the years pass and you use california law the transfer of the homestead which creditors could not have reached anyway is not an asset for purposes of fraudulent transfer of assets i'd like to try and bring that up if we went but that does go to intent because this is not something they could have got anyway it was out of reach so i'm sorry counsel i don't understand what you're saying have the judgment gone the other way in the bankruptcy court the trustee could not have reclaim the the property based on a fraudulent transfer though the trustee didn't have to use thirty four thirty nine which has some limitations compared to the bankruptcy told once you're past the year and you have to and you know succeeded of course he still would have had to prove this intent in insolvency i'm just talking if we're considering a debtor who knows the law perfectly i don't know if they did or not but for real world fraudulent transfer wouldn't wouldn't matter well outside bankruptcy court it wouldn't be a fraudulent transfer and not only that it wouldn't be something where the debtor had disabled himself it wouldn't have been something that i credit he could have attached because this was the homestead sole that all goes towards intent it's not that's what all the discussion about being insolvent is it all boils down to somebody you know playing games to put their assets  evidence on that was very different the second time yes i mean the first time around it was pretty sketchy i think that's what the back ended up concluding is that you just don't have enough to it to time for intent but the second time around the debt or was subject examination there was evidence of a great deal more debt it's a very different record and i said my my question is why doesn't that matter it does matter but there'd be arguments even from the second go around it would help such as rue it's a whole different ballgame with the client doesn't seem to have addressed that in her she wrote the brief and secondly it's unclear like the court said that the very  say thank you for the middle of rebuttal i think it is important to take into consideration that the debtor was unavailable and that the trustee did have to take into account what the schedules and statement of financial affairs were these documents were filed under penalty of perjury and the debtor didn't file a change of address the debtor was unavailable there were contacts or attempts at contact with the better and he wasn't there and the debt the trustee had to proceed with the case and i think it is important to take into account that there was an on available at the trust the did have these documents signed under penalty of perjury with which he had to prosecute this case i do again think that a trial we prove our case it might not have been the greatest case but there was a creditor and unfortunately if the income zero in the creditor is owed a dollar there's money owed to somebody and i do think that it was not the greatest of cases but i think that we clearly in the court established that there was a finding of inability but i think and i think if we just take those findings those were the facts around her and those were the findings and i think those findings are subject to a clearly erroneous standard and i don't think there was an error thank you