be claimed that are in dispute before the court first whether she's alleged a statement respecting her financial condition a second whether that statement was materially false inferred whether or not she's properly alleged reasonable reliance on that state of personal property belonging to a current either by title or by physical possession where is there an allegation that he was asked to provide a rise of collateral sensible if that isn't what's actually but i think that is quite eroded paragraph fifteen and that's what the document on the face of it says it calls it a list of collateral that's clear in the terms of the agreement that he signs that this is a list of his collateral and  somehow change the character of what he understood he was supposed to be disclosing after he had already made an express disclosure which does not suggest that all that it wouldn't that that it had that he should have  your client told him that this was going to be collateral and that he responded did he understand that there is no such meeting so we're now back to d i think by the initially of the document when it said that this is a statement of collateral thank you thank you was an oral but kind of in the brief is that they didn't around say well hell dare you tell us about trucks in which you only had possession but that there are so many to do it in the title and that's exactly what we asked you for responding to the argument that they're now or during the making of this loan agreement but certainly reserve to herself the right to make security interest in the future and that's what he gave her and it seems perfectly reasonable particularly given the understanding of have that many beyond that she can stick recalls into it i'm going to be first in line in the event that things go wrong and say you want us to adopt a doctor and because someone is not represented we al reliance or the justified delivery of the reliance that there's some room much opportunity to clarify rather or not he has a clear title not the least of which is if you're trying to take collateral in a vehicle you appropriately to do  was allowed to use it for several months and he listed that in the after under the first request as an item that he had possession of and then it showed up on the list of collateral any obligation for him to clarify that well i would i would argue that that's pretty far removed from from what we have here and what makes it far removed and what i want to know is is there any obligation to clarify in your mind financing the banks hold on to the title when there's when there's a car or vehicle you know well she didn't know and i don't know how many needs there might be on any of these pieces of property just where she is  stand in line and that's really the question whether he has an obligation to disclose them all he was was or was the property and they re characterized it as a list of collateral which was none present for their questions he has no obligation whatsoever to disclose that the neighbor's truck is going to the you see see filings oh yes i hear you want it but but that it's reliance i mean was her reliance reasonable in the answer or even justifiable and in the course below held it was even justifiable and that's actually part of it absolutely if if if the security interest in these vehicles is as important as it is now alleged to be she had asked for the titles to secure it so that she could take that security magically transform itself when when this property in which in all cases he did have a current or future potential ownership benchers became something that that  or her hooks into it no it did not become a misrepresentation at that point thank you i understand the court reviews the complete denial but it's important i think to recognize the bankruptcy court understood that these were the proper allegations because if there was doubt on that point there would have been the opportunity to amend or the bankruptcy court could have entertained amendment but the bankruptcy court