[00:00:00] Speaker 04: Thank you very much for your good arguments. [00:00:02] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:00:02] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:00:04] Speaker 04: Okay, let's call the next matter. [00:00:11] Speaker 00: In Ray Chavez. [00:00:13] Speaker 00: Matthew Nepper appearing for appellant. [00:00:16] Speaker 00: Mark Lounsbury appearing for appellee. [00:00:22] Speaker 04: Okay, Mr. Nepper, would you like to reserve a little time for rebuttal? [00:00:25] Speaker 02: Uh, yeah, I'll reserve five minutes. [00:00:28] Speaker 02: I probably won't have that much by the time I'm done, but it'll hopefully keep me somewhat disciplined. [00:00:34] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:00:34] Speaker 04: And as I say, we'll try to give you a heads up if we're getting close to that. [00:00:37] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:00:38] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:00:38] Speaker 02: Sounds good. [00:00:39] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:00:39] Speaker 02: You may proceed. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: All right, we may please the court. [00:00:41] Speaker 02: This case turns on a simple but fundamental principle of Nevada commercial law. [00:00:47] Speaker 02: A party seeking to enforce a lost negotiable instrument must show it either possessed the original note when it was lost or acquired it from someone who did. [00:00:56] Speaker 02: Real-time resolutions has done neither. [00:00:59] Speaker 04: Can I interrupt for a second? [00:01:00] Speaker 04: I mean, it's not as if that's unique to Nevada, right? [00:01:02] Speaker 04: That's a basic UCC-type principle, correct, in your view? [00:01:06] Speaker 02: Absolutely. [00:01:07] Speaker 02: I think that's the Leyva case, to be sure. [00:01:10] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:01:11] Speaker 02: So to the undisputed facts in this case, this isn't really a case that emphasizes the evidence, it emphasizes the application of law. [00:01:20] Speaker 02: Real-time admits it never possessed the original note. [00:01:23] Speaker 02: The lawsuit affidavit from Lehman, the lynchpin of their claim states Lehman cannot independently verify anything about the loan, including whether it ever held the original note. [00:01:34] Speaker 02: This is not a simple missing link, it's an evidentiary void. [00:01:38] Speaker 02: The bankruptcy court found enforcement based on speculation, not evidence. [00:01:43] Speaker 02: It accepted unverified assumptions and failed to identify any point in the chain where a party held enforceable rights under NRS 104-3309. [00:01:50] Speaker 02: I'm going to refer to it as the UCC article moving forward, the 3309. [00:01:56] Speaker 02: In this decision, if the decision is allowed to stand, it invites the enforcement of debts without foundational proof of ownership, undermining the statutory safeguards and borrow protections that the UCC3 affords. [00:02:10] Speaker 02: So we'll ask the court to reverse the bankruptcy courts ruling and affirm the lost note enforcement, and that it requires more than faith in a creditor's paperwork. [00:02:19] Speaker 02: It requires evidence, and that evidence is missing here. [00:02:22] Speaker 02: And so let me take you through the [00:02:25] Speaker 02: You know, the, the approach we're pushing here that is starting with the statutory framework that is the last note affidavit framework 3309 there's two ways you can establish entitlement to enforce the last note. [00:02:39] Speaker 02: The first one is possession at the time of loss, and the second is acquisition from a party entitled to enforce. [00:02:44] Speaker 02: And this really does emphasize, I think, Article 3's tightly wound interlocking provisions. [00:02:51] Speaker 02: The concept, really, when we get to the second part of this test, that is whether layman was entitled to enforce, draws in the questions of negotiation. [00:03:01] Speaker 02: It draws in the questions of transfer. [00:03:03] Speaker 02: It draws in the questions of endorsement. [00:03:06] Speaker 02: And so there was some back and forth in the briefing over the appropriate standard of review. [00:03:11] Speaker 02: So let me just touch on that for a moment. [00:03:13] Speaker 02: The appropriate standard of review for this appeal is de novo. [00:03:17] Speaker 02: It involves the bankruptcy court's interpretation and application of 3309. [00:03:20] Speaker 02: The case does not turn on a pure question of fact, but rather on whether RTR met the statutory burden under 3309, a mixed question of law and fact, where the primary issue [00:03:31] Speaker 02: is the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented because the key dispute involves how the law applies to largely undisputed facts, that is, the lack of the original note, the ambiguous chain of assignments, the absence of possession at the time of transfer or loss of the note. [00:03:49] Speaker 02: The de novo standard is, in our view, the correct standard, not clear error. [00:03:54] Speaker 02: All right, so let's get to just a straightforward. [00:03:57] Speaker 01: But let me ask, isn't the question whether or not the evidence that was submitted was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they met their burden to show that, you know, they acquired the note from layman. [00:04:11] Speaker 01: And to me, it looks like really a failure of evidence issue here. [00:04:17] Speaker 02: Well, the evidence fails, I agree with you. [00:04:21] Speaker 02: But the question is whether in the failure of that evidence, the application of the law was appropriate. [00:04:28] Speaker 02: We don't have, I agree, you could emphasize the lack of evidence of, for example, let's start at the beginning. [00:04:36] Speaker 02: Resme is clearly the issuer. [00:04:38] Speaker 02: Um, but, uh, and, and even I think in the opposition brief, um, they indicate in the passive voice that the note was transferred. [00:04:47] Speaker 02: We don't know who was transferred to. [00:04:48] Speaker 02: We don't know if there's a intermediate. [00:04:51] Speaker 04: It's endorsed in black, right? [00:04:52] Speaker 02: Which is true, but, but we don't, we're not able to actually follow it. [00:04:57] Speaker 02: So we don't know who lost it. [00:04:59] Speaker 02: It may have actually been a party that transferred a copy of the note to Lehman, not the original. [00:05:04] Speaker 02: We just don't know. [00:05:05] Speaker 02: And certainly the lost note affidavit doesn't get us there. [00:05:07] Speaker 02: But then the question becomes, well, there's no dispute of fact that Realtime did not have possession of the note ever after the purported, I suppose, negotiation to it from Lehman. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: That's the testimony of the witness at the evidentiary hearing. [00:05:24] Speaker 02: There's no dispute of fact that Lehman itself could not, through the lost note affidavit, indicate, represent anything about the note. [00:05:35] Speaker 02: I think I'm paraphrasing the statement by the affiant there. [00:05:40] Speaker 02: they would not take any ownership of whether they were in possession of the note. [00:05:45] Speaker 02: And then it takes us to the question of, well, if you get to the second component of 3309, that is whether layman had entitlement to enforce it as a holder, as a non-holder in possession with entitlement, we wouldn't know. [00:05:58] Speaker 02: We wouldn't even know what status they had at the time they purportedly transferred it to RTR because we don't know the manner in which it was negotiated to layman. [00:06:07] Speaker 02: So that's, I think, a significant hole in real-time's theory of the case. [00:06:14] Speaker 02: But to nevertheless conclude that real-time through other evidence that's not contemplated under UCC3, so for example, a bill of sale, some form of alignment of loan numbers that were part of the tranche of loans that real-time purchased out of the lame of bankruptcy, [00:06:36] Speaker 02: None of those are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 3309 or to establish the requirements for negotiation, which is what real time claims to be as a holder. [00:06:49] Speaker 02: And so that takes us to the issue of [00:06:53] Speaker 02: I suppose the case, the one case in the briefing that I thought really does deserve a little bit of time while we're arguing, I'm making sure I'm tracking my time, that's Jones versus U.S. [00:07:05] Speaker 02: Bank. [00:07:06] Speaker 02: We actually think Jones versus U.S. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: Bank is particularly helpful to us here. [00:07:11] Speaker 02: The facts in that case are easily distinguishable. [00:07:14] Speaker 02: You have two parties. [00:07:15] Speaker 02: You have the issuer that was Taylor Bean and Whitaker. [00:07:19] Speaker 02: And then you have the subsequent holder, which would be U.S. [00:07:22] Speaker 02: Bank, then Aquin was their servicer in that case. [00:07:25] Speaker 02: But Aquin verified possession, status, and absence of competing claims, whereas the layman affidavit provides no comparable verification. [00:07:34] Speaker 02: No diligent search that we can really figure out was conducted or described in the affidavit itself. [00:07:40] Speaker 02: Critically, Jones involved a straightforward traceable transaction history between the original lender and Auckland US Bank. [00:07:48] Speaker 02: There were no unknown or intervening parties, and that's the issue that distinguishes it from this case, to be sure. [00:07:54] Speaker 02: And finally, Auckland's verification of its possession and the note status at the time of the loss, I think, brings that one home. [00:08:01] Speaker 02: In the instant case, it originates with resume. [00:08:04] Speaker 02: No evidence it negotiated transfer the note to any successor. [00:08:07] Speaker 02: There's no chain of assignment from resume to layman, and there's no verification of the endorsement or delivery, understanding that it's endorsed in blank. [00:08:16] Speaker 02: The absence of that demonstrable entitlement at every link in the chain starkly distinguishes it from Jones and underscores the speculative nature of RTRs. [00:08:25] Speaker 02: enforcement claim. [00:08:26] Speaker 02: The other thing that really stands out to me here is the question of a limiting principle. [00:08:30] Speaker 02: If you were to adopt Jones over the plain language of Article 3, the question is, well, then what's the rule? [00:08:38] Speaker 02: Is Jones supplanting the statutory framework that is UCC 3 [00:08:43] Speaker 02: And what does that do to the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy? [00:08:47] Speaker 02: The courts in the circuit on your ruling, even if it's unpublished, it'll still be persuasive. [00:08:52] Speaker 02: I think it gives us a rule without any clear guidance as to how that still can be harmonized with the tightly-wound statutory framework of UCC 3. [00:09:05] Speaker 02: But on its facts, as distinguished from this case, there's really no doubt either the issuer or the subsequent holder lost the note when it when they were entitled to enforce. [00:09:15] Speaker 02: We just don't have that kind of record here. [00:09:17] Speaker 02: And of course, this is all because of the underlying policy that [00:09:21] Speaker 02: that UCC3 serves, that is avoiding the risk of double enforcement. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: So with that and six minutes left, we would ask that the court reverse the order overruling our objection and reinforce the evidentiary standards that are very clearly laid out in 3309. [00:09:37] Speaker 02: And with that, I will reserve the remainder of my time unless you have any questions. [00:09:43] Speaker 04: Any questions at this point? [00:09:45] Speaker 04: Nope. [00:09:46] Speaker 04: OK, let's hear from the Apple Police Council. [00:09:50] Speaker 03: Good morning, Your Honours. [00:09:52] Speaker 03: May it please the Court, my name is Mark Lansbury and I represent the Appellee Real-Time Resolutions, Inc. [00:09:58] Speaker 03: As the Appellants' Council noted, this is a pretty straightforward case about the application of NRS 104-3309. [00:10:09] Speaker 03: And I think where we differ in our opinion is essentially the standard of review. [00:10:18] Speaker 03: It's our position that this was an evidentiary decision. [00:10:24] Speaker 03: Um, and, and it should be reviewed on a, an abusive discretion stand. [00:10:30] Speaker 05: Whatever the standard here is. [00:10:34] Speaker 05: How do you get around 3309? [00:10:36] Speaker 05: I mean, where's where's the evidence. [00:10:40] Speaker 05: Here to show. [00:10:43] Speaker 05: You know, what we're dealing with here, maybe you'd agree with this, but collecting on a note, including foreclosing non-judicially if the note is secured by a deed of trust, is a relatively straightforward process. [00:10:54] Speaker 05: It happens all the time. [00:10:56] Speaker 05: And one of the requirements to make sure that this expedited procedure works is 3309. [00:11:04] Speaker 05: that if it's lost, it has to be lost by somebody that had possession of it. [00:11:09] Speaker 05: And in the record, I don't see, I can't find it in the record where you dot that I or cross that T. [00:11:20] Speaker 03: You're correct, Your Honor, that under 3309, the lost note affidavit, in addition to the preponderance of the evidence, as part of the preponderance of the evidence, has to establish the ownership of the note. [00:11:36] Speaker 03: But in this case, even though the lost note affidavit itself doesn't get all the way there over the finish line, [00:11:46] Speaker 03: I think that it's the other evidence considered in conjunction with the lost note affidavit. [00:11:52] Speaker 03: So just to get into the specifics, we have the bill of sale from Lehman to real-time parent company, RTG. [00:12:04] Speaker 05: But the bill of sale is I sold whatever I have. [00:12:07] Speaker 05: Maybe what I sold was something, an interest in a note that was lost that I never had possession of. [00:12:20] Speaker 05: People buy obligations all the time that have expired as a result of the statute of limitations, but they're willing to pay something for it anyway. [00:12:31] Speaker 05: Here they might have bought something, [00:12:34] Speaker 05: but it might not be enough to actually collect on it. [00:12:39] Speaker 03: And yeah, and I can understand that position. [00:12:41] Speaker 03: Definitely. [00:12:42] Speaker 03: I think when you consider the earlier correspondence we have in the record showing attempts to collect by a solace financial on that debt on this loan that was then we can be shown was included in the pool that layman sold later on. [00:13:04] Speaker 03: I think we can, you know, it can be tracked from resume to real time, certainly by preponderance, and I think in another important, you know, thing to consider in this situation is just the, there aren't multiple claimants [00:13:25] Speaker 03: purporting to hold this note. [00:13:28] Speaker 03: It's this this is, you know, over a decade ago, there haven't been no one else has emerged to try to claim the rights under this, this note and be to trust and [00:13:42] Speaker 03: When you take that in conjunction with the other evidence, I think it establishes that the lower court did have a preponderance of the evidence to make the decision. [00:13:55] Speaker 03: And at that point, it really just comes down to weighing the evidence versus trying to [00:14:08] Speaker 03: change what 104 through 309 covers. [00:14:12] Speaker 05: I'm not sure if that's weighing the evidence or guessing what might have been. [00:14:18] Speaker 03: I can understand that position, but I think under the lower court was pretty explicit in its order as to the things in the evidentiary hearing that were introduced, the testimony and the documents, and how they used that as the basis for this decision. [00:14:38] Speaker 03: So they went through the prongs of the three prongs of NRS 104, 3309. [00:14:44] Speaker 03: and found that even if the lost note affidavit alone is insufficient, and we don't argue that on its own, it would get us all the way there. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: Well, it's useless, right? [00:14:57] Speaker 01: Because it just says, we don't know. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: The lost note affidavit says, we have no idea because we destroyed our records. [00:15:04] Speaker 01: And you could have asked for this in 2018 when you bought the note, [00:15:08] Speaker 01: because we destroyed the records in 2022, but we have no idea. [00:15:12] Speaker 01: So the lost note affidavit provides no value, right? [00:15:16] Speaker 03: Yeah, it's only value is just to offer an explanation that the other evidence can, you know, framework the other evidence can fit in. [00:15:24] Speaker 03: So we know what, we know what, oh, sorry. [00:15:26] Speaker 01: Go ahead, go ahead. [00:15:28] Speaker 03: I was just gonna say, it establishes why the note is lost, why we don't have the direct documentation. [00:15:37] Speaker 03: And then we can fill in the gaps with the evidence that we do have, and that's the evidence that the lower court considered in deciding that the preponderance of evidence standard had been met. [00:15:49] Speaker 01: So is there evidence of a chain of title of ownership, not servicing, but ownership of the loan from resume to layman? [00:16:00] Speaker 01: You seem to gloss over that fact. [00:16:04] Speaker 01: Resme had it. [00:16:05] Speaker 01: And then at some point, Lehman had it. [00:16:10] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:16:10] Speaker 01: Why is that sufficient to establish that, you know, Lehman had the note, Lehman lost the note and we got the note from Lehman. [00:16:19] Speaker 03: I think it's sufficient because it can show the servicing shows that there weren't any, any subsequent transfers during that period. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: or any unknown transfers during that period, it covers the time that we're missing, basically. [00:16:40] Speaker 01: For servicing. [00:16:41] Speaker 03: For servicing. [00:16:42] Speaker 01: And so you're saying that shows that there wasn't a change in ownership? [00:16:46] Speaker 03: No, just that it shows that we can track the note through that period and we know that it was included in this pool. [00:16:57] Speaker 03: So we know that it didn't disappear during this time or wasn't enforced or anything. [00:17:05] Speaker 05: It was... Well, if it was in the pool, I mean, you bought [00:17:14] Speaker 05: Whatever layman had but did layman have enough to be able to collect on this note we don't we don't know that we know you bought whatever layman had but what is it that layman had. [00:17:28] Speaker 03: Well, I mean, yes, I can see, I can see your concern with with that and I think that's addressed by what I was referring to earlier with the fact that there haven't been any other claimants to this [00:17:44] Speaker 03: coming that have come forward and we're talking about a significant amount of time since it left layman's possession and from there it is well documented that the chain of title so the I think that when you consider the amount of time that's gone by without any anyone else claiming you know the right to enforce in conjunction with the other evidence introduced it's it's reasonable [00:18:11] Speaker 05: Well, what we're having here, okay, this is a note that's secured by the deed of trust. [00:18:16] Speaker 05: If the note is valid and you hold it, then you can take somebody's home. [00:18:19] Speaker 05: It's a pretty serious thing. [00:18:21] Speaker 05: And the foreclosure process is not all that difficult. [00:18:24] Speaker 05: Isn't it important for the process, if it's not all that hard, that it's important, if you're going to take somebody's home, that you do it right? [00:18:33] Speaker 03: I do agree that it's important that it be done right and that you establish, you know, that you follow the correct procedure. [00:18:42] Speaker 03: And I think here just under NRS 104-3309, I think by showing the preponderance in addition to the last note, you know, the statutory requirements are met. [00:18:57] Speaker 03: And at that point, it's just a, [00:18:59] Speaker 03: the, it was just the lower court's decision on whether, you know, the preponderance of evidence and the circumstances specific to this note with no other, you know, no other claimants and the debtor not disputing the existence of the note. [00:19:19] Speaker 03: It's essentially just, it would be unenforceable by anyone if [00:19:28] Speaker 03: that you were to accept the position that this gap removes the ability to foreclose? [00:19:36] Speaker 04: That may be the answer. [00:19:39] Speaker 04: Entirely possible that's the answer, right? [00:19:41] Speaker 04: That's the whole point of tracking the actual ownership of the note, which doesn't seem to have happened here from where we can tell. [00:19:48] Speaker 03: Yes, your honor I can definitely understand that position and yet in some cases that does happen. [00:19:55] Speaker 03: Um, I think here, but what it really comes down to is just circling back around what I was saying about. [00:20:03] Speaker 03: the standard of review being, you know, this was an evidentiary decision at its heart. [00:20:11] Speaker 04: I think they- Let's focus on that for a second. [00:20:13] Speaker 04: It's not as if the parties are disagreeing about what evidence was provided. [00:20:18] Speaker 04: The evidence that was provided is what the court looked at. [00:20:22] Speaker 04: The question is whether that was sufficient to satisfy 3309. [00:20:25] Speaker 04: That is a legal question. [00:20:27] Speaker 04: This is not clear error in my mind. [00:20:29] Speaker 04: Am I wrong about that? [00:20:30] Speaker 04: This is de novo. [00:20:34] Speaker 03: In my opinion, I think the trial court going through the three-prong test, it really comes down to not them, not the lower court having any misapplication of the law. [00:20:50] Speaker 03: It really just comes down to them going through each prong and determining whether the evidence was sufficient. [00:20:58] Speaker 04: So my question is, does that leave us with de novo, or are you trying to argue that, no, this is clear error? [00:21:04] Speaker 03: I'm trying to argue that it's clear error just on the basis that it really each prong of this test really comes down to. [00:21:13] Speaker 04: But she didn't. [00:21:14] Speaker 04: I mean, the issue isn't did the bankruptcy court get a fact wrong? [00:21:19] Speaker 04: The issue is, were those facts in the aggregate sufficient to satisfy 3309? [00:21:23] Speaker 04: Why isn't that a legal question? [00:21:25] Speaker 04: That's not a factual question. [00:21:26] Speaker 04: That's a legal question, isn't it? [00:21:28] Speaker 03: I would say I would argue that it's an evidentiary question just because it comes down to the way to the evidence considered in the testimony introduced at the evidentiary hearing. [00:21:39] Speaker 05: I think I share Judge Lafferty's concern here. [00:21:43] Speaker 05: You're talking about the court weighing evidence? [00:21:48] Speaker 05: But I don't see the court weighing evidence. [00:21:52] Speaker 05: I think what we have here is there was no evidence of possession of the note to weigh. [00:22:01] Speaker 05: Without that piece, it seems to me that it's a legal issue, not an evidentiary issue. [00:22:08] Speaker 05: Again, there's just no evidence that meets the requirement of 3309. [00:22:19] Speaker 03: Yeah, I can. [00:22:21] Speaker 03: I, I see, I see your, your position and I understand the concern about you know the sufficiency of the evidence but I really think that under 3309 it's. [00:22:33] Speaker 03: the statute makes it pretty clear that it isn't just the lost note affidavit that can be introduced, that all the circumstances and evidence surrounding the situation can be considered. [00:22:49] Speaker 05: And I think everything about- Help me on that because I don't read 3309 that way. [00:22:55] Speaker 05: It says, 3309 says you need X, Y, and Z. And we don't have Y. [00:23:03] Speaker 03: Yes, your honor. [00:23:05] Speaker 03: Um, so it's it's really just the reading of 3309 that I, I'm suggesting is essentially just that. [00:23:15] Speaker 03: under 33092 that the claimant was, or you have to show the claimant was acquired ownership from a person who was entitled to enforce it, that the statute's not specific about how you would establish that, and it suggests that you can introduce additional evidence on top of the lost note affidavit that that doesn't alone have to meet the evidentiary requirement. [00:23:45] Speaker 03: Um, so, uh, if there aren't any other questions, uh, uh, from, uh, your honors, um, real time resolutions will respectfully request that the panel, uh, affirm the bankruptcy courts order and fall. [00:24:00] Speaker 03: Um, and I am happy to address any further questions if there's anything else. [00:24:05] Speaker 03: Anybody else? [00:24:06] Speaker 01: Nope. [00:24:07] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:24:07] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:24:08] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:24:09] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:24:11] Speaker 02: Uh, thank you. [00:24:13] Speaker 02: All right. [00:24:13] Speaker 02: So let me just start. [00:24:14] Speaker 02: We left off, um, three, three, um, oh, nine actually does, uh, provide the, the, the statutory foundation for how to determine whether under prong to layman was, uh, entitled, uh, to enforce the note in whatever, um, holder or non holder status it may have been. [00:24:37] Speaker 02: And as the record is unclear. [00:24:39] Speaker 02: That is by reference to 3201, negotiation. [00:24:42] Speaker 02: Negotiation means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder. [00:24:51] Speaker 02: That's the evidence you'd be looking for. [00:24:52] Speaker 02: And then, of course, we need to talk about 3203, transfer and the rights acquired by the transfer. [00:24:58] Speaker 02: Don't need to go into the language. [00:24:59] Speaker 02: I know the court's familiar with it. [00:25:00] Speaker 02: But that's the statutory basis for the evidence to establish whether Layman, under prong 2 of 3309, was entitled to enforce the note, and again, whatever status it may have been at the time, at the time of the loss of the note, which it could not itself independently verify the note was ever lost while in its possession or whether it even actually ever arrived into Layman's possession. [00:25:23] Speaker 02: So that would be my point on that. [00:25:25] Speaker 02: Two, UCC3 does not contemplate the length of time since any party other than RTR claimed entitlement to enforce. [00:25:34] Speaker 02: I know that under your other hats as bankruptcy judges, you're probably still seeing the same thing we are out here. [00:25:42] Speaker 02: Folks, homeowners who have not made a single payment on their mortgage since the last recession. [00:25:49] Speaker 02: since 2013, since 2009, 10, which sets up all kinds of very interesting theories about, you know, how to, you know, from my standpoint as a consumer attorney, how to attack that for my clients, you know, that just, you know, waiver latches. [00:26:05] Speaker 02: And then there's also a statute out here that has received much derision from the Nevada Supreme Court recently. [00:26:12] Speaker 02: But the point is, is that that happens without anybody [00:26:15] Speaker 02: coming to collect 10, 12, 13 years. [00:26:17] Speaker 02: I know you've seen it. [00:26:18] Speaker 02: I see it all the time. [00:26:20] Speaker 02: And that's not within the, it's just not within the purview of UCC3. [00:26:27] Speaker 02: UCC3 is an interlocking set of provisions that are precise. [00:26:32] Speaker 02: and the evidence to support those items is clear from the face of the statute itself. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: Finally, as to the evidence that would establish what RTR bought, with the panel on that one, the bill of sale tells us that they bought something, but the reality is that there's nothing in the record to clarify for us what they bought, what layman had the entitlement to sell. [00:26:56] Speaker 04: Well, I mean, there's no evidence of what was delivered, right? [00:26:59] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:27:00] Speaker 02: That's exactly right. [00:27:02] Speaker 02: That takes us back to 3-2 or 3. [00:27:04] Speaker 02: And so with that, unless you have any other questions, I will conclude. [00:27:10] Speaker 04: Anybody? [00:27:11] Speaker 04: No. [00:27:11] Speaker 04: No more questions. [00:27:11] Speaker 04: OK. [00:27:12] Speaker 04: This is really very interesting. [00:27:14] Speaker 04: Thank you both for your very good arguments. [00:27:16] Speaker 04: Matters submitted. [00:27:17] Speaker 04: We'll get you a decision as soon as we can. [00:27:19] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:27:19] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:20] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:27:21] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:21] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:27:23] Speaker 04: OK. [00:27:23] Speaker 04: Can we call our last matter, please?