believe that very verses sandyford clearly indicated that a debtor must have a prior interest in the property so that if there was a simultaneous creation of the interest in the property right crude and what happened actually three years or so after the person sander for decision the bankruptcy code was amended by congress to specifically address that situation and not relegated to its very unique facts the question still is when was was there simultaneous fixing here and it is been the the law new york state  for over one hundred years that the fixing of a lien by a creditor of the grand tour is when the judgment is docketed in the county in which that property is located regardless of any transfer transferred her interest in the property to her daughter and son and son in law she had previously owned the property the full fee since two thousand and four she did not have counsel at the time she got completely different and i'll judge this case in scorpio the judgment was entered several years before the debtor ever st acquired an interest this is a very unique factual case which could have you know consequences debtor after the entry to judgment reverses the transaction for whatever reason same perhaps to get a get a mortgage or she needs x access to some equity and then that judgment lien  apparently not have arisen in till that day so essentially it's possible that that a that that judgment creditor could be left out in the cold it's also you know even though i think believe firmly that given the very divergent facts scorpio scorpio doesn't apply since there was clearly some attachable interest in the property as of the time t there was equity above and beyond that meant that they were deprived of as this court i believe held in the adelphia trust case in two thousand and eleven  conveyance lawsuits are not limited to the recovery of property itself you can obtain the value that was lost to the creditor and in and upon the bankruptcy filing since that was a this was not the only creditor it was not a  claim that was unique to this particular creditor but rather to the creditor body as a whole which that that right to bring that claim for the last equity was in the possession of the trustee and in this case the trustee had a claim against the transfer ease for that last equity which it subsequently settled and as the major and secured creditor in this case the appellee will enjoy in the distribution from those the u s supreme court case as well as discords decision and mary matalin versus scorpion no this has been decided and issued there has been no other supreme court  to seventy eight dollars and the cases that they cite those are for the creditors right the debtor cannot undo the transaction themselves which is which is what they really tried to do supreme court there's been no intervening decision by this court after scarp you know reconsidering it granted councillors cited to various district courts and bankruptcy courts and other jurisdictions that have d after the phone versus own case both held similar describe you know so there is no other circuit court that has criticized the the in the sense that it proved he bids the precise maneuvering that the debtor is doing here without scorpion oh there's potential for abuse by the directors of the summer scenario as this of transferring property back and forth taking out nonexempt assets and making them potentially exempt so accordingly the scorpio does not just want  take one moment the the exemption of five hundred and twenty two af is supposed to be used as a shield they're trying to use this this word here both in terms of the legal maneuvering that was done with respect to the transfers both the district court and bankruptcy court found that the debtor stated that these were dubious transfers and that now the debtor is admitting to fraudulent conveyance and now wants to kind of turn back clock after everybody's position has changed including this judgment creditor my client as well as other creditors the property was sold not just a little bit below almost half priced student value of the home back in two thousand and fourteen to two children so almost half of the equity was taken out from the home issue that was really considered by the lower courts and it wasn't really addressed in the papers and the answer is is that upon the time of the docketing of the judgment in the county in which the properties situated that   and here are the hell he has a remedy here he's going to share in that last equity that was recovered by the trustee and the debtor should get the benefit of her fresh start and her allowed exemption