debtor mr timothy stammer through forgery and or false pretenses perpetrated by marshall doyle his wife and convicted criminal and at this part attorney today the trustee seeks a judgment declaring that estate that the bankruptcy is the right to title to the property free and clear so that the equity may be used for the benefit of creditors should be noted that mr starmer has no interest in this claim he received the bankruptcy this charge back in two thousand and fifteen the question is whether the bankruptcy court ended this record granting respondents motion for summary judgment because there was an issue of fact related to stormers execution and delivery of the deed in lieu of foreclosure why is there an issue of fact i mean he acknowledge that he signed it and he's saying that he didn't read it right if you had read it it would have been obvious what it was it was obvious on its face correct correct you however he does clarify in his that decision st of all let's put this document to his wife had forged the mortgage and loan documents that led to this deed that was in lieu of foreclosure he chose not to read it to sign it without reading he should be protected this is really the trustees claim as you mention but the point is that the transfer of the deed would be void because he didn't bother to read it your honor i don't agree with that assertion st of all the bankruptcy court decision the bankruptcy courts the station and page seven acknowledged that he was  induced to sign this the oh no question of getting to what's in the record that his wife says and if there is an issue of negligence i think that's an issue that is not on the record and should go to trial he can be questioned on why he didn't read the document itself  that is an issue of fact however the bankruptcy courts the session on this motion for summary judgment is in fact that he was probably induced now the error in the bankruptcy courts is asian is that the bankruptcy court conclude deed for the bankruptcy court to find well the bankruptcy courts decision which is stated in page six of the of the court's decision the bankruptcy court decisions relies on the district attorney statement by mr starmer in page two hundred and twenty two of the record here before this court there is the deposition of mr timothy with questions by opposing counsel here where he clarified those statements saying  i didn't know i didn't know that i was signing at the i thought i was signing i know of some sort and later learned that it was in the in page two hundred and twenty five of the appendix he further reaffirmed i was signing a no for for her meaning  in the on the record the wise decision and the grimes decision they all know they all follow the same rule for jury maybe up thing to fraudulent means by artifice trick or the vice and obligation to read a document before he or she signs it and a party can generally avoid the effect of the document on the ground that he didn't read it or know its contents and so the court then goes on to say now where a part unaware of the nature of the document and where they're basically incapacitated from reading it because they were literate blind or they don't speak the language and then they've been misled that's a different story but there's no suggestion here that your client was blind illiterate or didn't understand well your honor that would throw off all of the cases that were the court has decided that document has been fraudulently induced because in all its most all of circumstances most of circumstances the person can read the of his wife a licensed attorney telling him that this was a loan document he just signed it relying on her now the issue here it would make it void of all for some purposes but it doesn't make it void as against the innocent purchaser down the road that's the point right no this agree with that because here is the line in grimes and in which are cited by the bankruptcy court that's where the line is drawn if a person one he signed yes so he signed a deed and he signed an affidavit document with the title affidavit for deed yes yes but those refrigerated dead fish here the record is replete with examples that the debtor both intended to sign the deed and understood he was signing a deed principly that is that their statement he made to the district attorney's office in connection with the criminal investigation of the debtors wife thought he was signing a deed for it won't and it's five hundred and thirty nd is important to note that the signatures on the document are both genuine was particularly telling is that the debtor in connection with the due move foreclosure just curse mentioned he also the bankruptcy court in the district court also looked at the presumption of intent to can convey title here the bankruptcy court determined that the appellate failed to rebut that presumption as well as the scores points out that the that the negligence of the party signing the deed has to be a relevant consideration here as we said said before the appellant failed the debt or excuse conclusively bound as my never given ten percent excuse me is immaterial again in the grimes case which my friends cite was not a forgery because despite the contradictory testimony of the record the deed was clearly labeled and ignored in that deed but is told this is a rental car agreement but it says on its face deed and it leaves out all the details in your view does the fact that he didn't read it isn't enough to say that he's  deed but it would be different with respect to your client who's going to find a purchaser and you're saying well your honor i think what i'm saying is that the consequence of a void deed is construct for my clients in other words no one can take title subsequently there was never at the execution if there is a failure to pass title to does what i'm nischelle and no one can be a protecting tarnow as a bona fide a purchaser of the real property law i think the point here to make is that even if there even if we assume and make the credible assumption and give the benefit of every incredible doubt to the appellants position the fact that your honor pointed out he failed to read it property for a no their testimony was not that he was executing a no or believes executed no it was that he was signing a deed for the purpose of collateralized the property for the purpose of a ten thousand dollars loan and indeed the record or testified to he testified specifically and intelligently to the exact circumstances surrounding the transaction which had had occurred in this case you're saying there's no  intend or know he was signing a deed their argument below was that the bankruptcy court resolved the credibility and made a credibility determination that in the end that's the reason why a summary judgment should not have been granted there precisely what happened in this case and now on appeal before this court they try to disavow that statement and divorce themselves of their prior arguments below and then making contradictory arguments here you know the questions  gery is the procurement of a signature on a deed by artifice trick or device and the person believes it to be because of the artifice trick or device to be another instrument now fraud in contrast is the person signing a document such as a deed by artifice trick or device but the actual document itself it's a deed that done a lot different lies the difference lies and grind upon this in what the that what the person thought he was signing at the time of the execution of the document because of the fraud or representation by the other the question is w