joint ownership interest in the calder with her brother paul st the provenance with students sales and purchase invoices and independents email correspondence shows both phyllis and paul as joint owners of the calder nd phyllis's verified complaint in which she testified under oath that she had a joint ownership interest in the calder with her brother paul at the time of sale of the errors when it concluded that there was insufficient evidence of phyllis's ownership st it did not consider the possibility that the color could have been jointly distributed out of phyllis and her brother paul stepmother of documentation or mean she is the one you're saying receive the distribution so it seems odd to sort of reconstruct it indirectly when she could just say oh in this day pull as the secular distributed the they're overseas to a dollar in switzerland and also an e mail correspondence where it's shown that the calls are foundation which where the call there was registered to the same problems duty to investigate the ship of the color however your honor that is not at issue on appeal issue at this point is whether or not she had an ownership interest in the culture at the time of sale has been found one by this circuit in diverse people danger to be a history of ownership which is an industry of evidence that we are saying that she had an ownership interest in the color  by someone years later and that is not proof of ownership at all and judge has felt properly held that especially when put in context with the brother statements that he was the undisputed owner of the work at that that description of provence reflects the sister's beneficial interest and nothing more the appellant came to court on a theory that she had acquired an ownership interest under the will therefore to the extent appellant want this court to rely on her verified statement from her complaint or excerpts from a deposition where by the way the quoted language for that was from the question not the answer but from the question there's no probative value at all to those statements they're simply legal conclusions not backed by any evidence in the record your honour's well i mean it is some there is some evidence whiny why isn't it a possible inference that she eluded her hadn't we should interest i think as was pretty clear from my friend's presentation they can't put in a shred of evidence explaining the circumstances that purported distribution which once again was not what they argued initially they can't say when how or under what circumstances that purported distribution took place they can't even cited as judge because that will help a single conversation with the brother which may have led her to believe putting aside whether there was legal significance even led her to believe that she was the joint owner the whole basis of their belief that she was a joint owner originally derived from the will and once that will was produc litigation they had to reverse engineer theory to try to fit the legal requirements and they just couldn't do that to the extent they're relying on progress on statements that the descendants provided to christie and this is that in the appendix  and thirty two i think this is a perfect illustration of why the description of the program on the property value is because it's wrong it says in the document they're relying on that the descendants acquired the work from the father nobody makes that allegation here at all the st apartment in the anonymous case which we cited page sixteen of our papers makes very clear that that's the reason why an invoice without more may not be regarded as evidence of title title or ownership of the court there said there's always the potential for underly ability of information contained in an invoice and that's why without more and we have nothing more here without more it can't be relied on  and is free to pursue her claims against her brother for failing to remit what she claims are her share of the proceeds as far as title to the artwork is concerned she's furnished absolutely no admissible evidence creating any tribal issue in fact you do have a view of who this is in the record of his deposition which may cite ajay at one hundred and thirty seven that based on paul's expressed unambiguous statements that he was the sole title holder that was how officers believe and i think more importantly for present purposes where the brother was the sole owner and there is no proof otherwise watchers understanding is entirely irrelevant and judge that firm and articulate that point quite clearly and his decision and challenge to him ah to which we cited page eight if in fact the transfer or had good title the buyer's understanding or belief or good faith is totally irrelevant the cases that the other side relies on relate to a very narrow in trust him and doctrine under the u c c but in a situation like this where there's absolutely no evidence that the brother did not have if we have her statements that she's an owner it is pigments that he vetoed or why is that a questions that can be submitted to a jury sure because the burden is on the plaintive to put forward admissible evidence and that's her statement which is a legal mean what the plaintiff wanted to say but but under no circumstances have they satisfied their burden of putting in admissible evidence that anyone other than the brother was the title owner and i should point out there is no dispute although this is briefed below that children ownership interest in the quarter nd your honor i would point out that the invoices that my brother from the other side disputes indigos the st showing that this is actually a question of fact about whether or not where from the calder foundation it shows that paul matters and so some other matters for joy of the calder this is admissible evidence and it does show that a reasonable jury could conclude from the speeches stage we don't need to prove exactly how the color was distributed or what specific date what we have to do is show that there is evidence from which a readable jury could conclude drawing inferences in phillis's favor that this evidence shows that she