thank you may please the court i'd like to focus primarily on the issue of attorney's fees which is one of the two issues that was teed up for appeal and then briefly at the end of my argument maybe say  about the issue of the expert witness who is excluded recognizing of course that the abuse of discretion standard presents a fairly steep uphill battle for any appellant with respect to attorneys i would submit that i feel very strongly about is that if this matter were teed up before trial court and it was fully briefed on the merits that my side would have far away the stronger argument so we have in attorney  sing out the parts that aren't relevant in the event any action or proceeding is brought because of an alleged breach or default here under under the contract was all this action brought because there had been a breach in the underlying contract i would say no your honor i would say that the contracts that are being discussed are the contracts between the debtor and m b and real estate where the transfers took not been a breach of contract if the contract had been completely performed there would not have been a fraudulent transfer case right i'm i'm not sure i agree with that your honor as i understand again i was not the trial lawyer so i'm struggling a little bit for the facts here but as i understand it the contracts were completely performed the prints were made there was no  it was found that there was no consideration but the contracts were i think we performed in the contracts were even to be fraudulent transfers so i wasn't there an underlying there was an underlying debt right if you have to have a debt to have a fraudulent transfer case right well he so the debtor came to my client begging to take these properties off of his use hands which is something that he did and made the point that this wasn't litigated but wasn't there an opportunity for raising the arguments that you're now raising before the bankruptcy court and i can't find any place in the record where in front of the judge in the when the st instance decided this you came back and said you know you awarded fees there but you really should have done it and so now we don't want to do what and here was why is it that if you wait while i would say that it's not way in your honor because the in the trial court didn't follow what i understand to be the standard procedure in awarding attorneys fees i understand that procedure to be party that won the judgment where the issue of entitlement to fees and the issue of the amount of fees is determined in this case the trial court i would use the word short circuited that process by finding as guess again your honor i still see a a significant difference between having one party has a different party admittedly a party represented by the same firm who controls the litigation making a particular argument and a different party making another argument where the law is is certainly subject to debate i mean we're debating these issues now this is not you know when i say we you know should have done so before last before taking decisions that have been made you know binding presidential decisions that say that you are doesn't title to file an appeal where this particular issue which has already been decided by the judge is not  subject to a motion for a new trial for example i'm not aware that we need to bring a motion for a new trial which is what i think the procedural motion would have been to challenge before we file an appeal so i  recognize that the better procedural posture is to have the issue fully briefed and decided at the trial court level but i was that was that was not done because the trial court want to head without will but if the court ultimately sides with us then i think that the proper result would be to to remain and so that that particular issue can be addressed by the trial court because it hasn't been and i think you know there is a case within the th circuit called leonard toys where there was a seven month of this i think seven months at the time of decision at the time of decision it was less than one month the fact it was less than  wanted them to have to depose the witness two weeks before the then existing trial date so the seven months is what it ended up being it was this request renew once it became clear that the trial wasn't going forward in july i can't find any ok i think i'll take that the matter was just brought up and i'm in a little bit of a better position than mr marks is because i tried the case and i was there the whole time the mr marks got brought in sort of afterwards check with respect to the experts i can tell you the reason why there's nothing in the record is because there were no attempts to after that initial attempt that the court denied to add an extra been his or so what i believe  end seven continuances of the trial for them over our objection and never brought up this witness issue after they were granted that and so if there were several months went down  suggesting for three weeks before the new discovery kind of they're suggesting in the court rightly realized wow there's going to be prejudice here and you also haven't explained m b m why it's appropriate for you to be able to  with the case or vast majority of it and i tried it and i was around when those two thousand and seventeen attorneys these issues  proceeding is brought to interpret or construe the terms here of to declare the rights of the respective parties here under and it keeps going on but i think that's another important part after all this  is this action is because they are the rights of the party they said oh wait you are you do not have the right to get the assets you got into this transfer agreement because it was fraudulent if the parties rage with them so i'm not surprised at all that they claimed it was it brought attorneys the region it is and that's why you know when we started going down this road judge taylor mentioned why isn't there a rule that an issue here you can claim in two thousand and seventeen that a clause is broad and when nothing changes about the applause it's the same case you get two years later is the same lawyers say no it's narrow or no or right yes  obviously i'm i'm i think you and obviously i'm concerned about that what's the correct legal what do i do with that unlike many others that somebody could bring up and be it is called n b n because it's named after more ad then mean so the party obtained this good result for him early on who controls this specific representations about whether this is appropriate and to connect it to the other point the reason i am sure and judges i did this way that he did it is there was so much reporting on why was it in their briefs why didn't they say hey by the way there is this complicated issue up there i think you five judges on the bench know about it and here's their view on it but instead they acted like it never happened and it didn't happen and it was one but three witnesses opine on the value of the of the properties but they claim that oh my gosh we are so prejudiced by this and they were printed just because they designated somebody who wasn't a license to praise that's what was very well over through all the facts and the background pleadings which is why he knew about all the attorneys he gave you a sound decision on the fees and on the expert witness and we should be entitled to our fees action involving a contract you know where and so there's a contract here this is why we're here is one of the transfers and the actions that oh most transfers that happened because of the contract now have to be set aside those transfers are no good there's no question this is a contract there's no question that this is it declares the rights of the parties under the contract and so the penrod case says if there's not actually any bar to having bankruptcy law byu prevail so really strong position but also whatever issues he had with it it really should have brought him up with the trial fraudulent transfer you will see that there is a promotion this amount a tremendous number of decisions it's been discussed and debated it is not necessarily an easy issue and i think that the  but but isn't it was the case they want they convince the judge that added to that they argue that we should get this because of the recipients of a that j will be entitled to it the judge said that's absolutely right he's determined that in this case i did i don't believe that's right and i did look at this issue and i cannot cite for you the page number in the one thousand five hundred page excerpt of record today but i did look at it very carefully and my understanding is that the appellee here did not challenge and i think they did not challenge it for tactical reasons which resulted in the attorney for the award that you know that they ultimately won if not challenge this issue of whether it was a broad form or not a broad one it apparently was not in their interest so i don't believe that the judge and it was not judge sided he was brought in just to handle a trial it was the bankruptcy judge who handled the case i believe he simply saw this as you know a party raising the white flag with respect to the issue of entitlement i do believe that there was there was a briefing in opposition on the size of the attorney fiord from bend human again we are talking about two different parties so i don't think that it is inappropriate for us to make the argument you have made here today because i think that it's a right argument which is the way i started my my discussion and one of the reasons to respond to mr  who said well if you look at the words of the attorneys because there are essential three aspects to it and the middle aspect is to declare the rights of the respective parties and yet you know there's many many cases under the california provision that said that you get attorneys behind both to enforce the lesser is right here under to enforce the rights iran that was held not to include so you know i do think that we have the better argument