[00:00:02] Speaker 02:
First up, we have NRAE FAB 5 LLC, two consolidated cases.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Carolyn Jean Lindholm, appearing for appellant.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Carolyn Dai Appley, trustee appearing pro se.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
And Corey Culver, appearing for Appley's Cowley Performance Horses and Tuscaloota Creek Ranch.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Lindholm, would you like to reserve some time for rebuttal?

[00:00:32] Speaker 06:
yes yes please five minutes five minutes okay go ahead please thank you this this is a case in which the unsecured creditors the stable and the trainer caused the need for the bankruptcy we had

[00:00:53] Speaker 06:
Breeding for these stallions arranged, and they prevented those stallions from getting their final certification, from being able to go out to the vet facility and breed.

[00:01:04] Speaker 06:
Once that was not working, when we filed a Chapter 11, we wanted to try to save them.

[00:01:11] Speaker 06:
Ms.

[00:01:11] Speaker 08:
Lindholm, this is Judge Spraker.

[00:01:14] Speaker 08:
Yes.

[00:01:14] Speaker 08:
When you say we, who filed the Chapter 11?

[00:01:19] Speaker 06:
Bab 5 LLC.

[00:01:21] Speaker 08:
All right, and that's because at that time you believed and your husband believed that Fab Five owned the horses, correct?

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:01:30] Speaker 08:
But you believe now that your husband owns the horses?

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
We discovered that after the accountant died.

[00:01:37] Speaker 08:
The problem is, I believe the record is fairly clear, like you confirmed, you represent Fab Five.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:01:44] Speaker 08:
Why do you have standing?

[00:01:46] Speaker 06:
I'm sorry, why do I have what?

[00:01:48] Speaker 08:
have standing.

[00:01:49] Speaker 08:
Fab five is a chapter seven debtor, has been dispossessed and placed by the trustee.

[00:01:57] Speaker 08:
And you are saying that your husband has the horses.

[00:02:02] Speaker 08:
Why isn't he the appellant?

[00:02:03] Speaker 08:
He's the one with the interest.

[00:02:08] Speaker 06:
Well, he would like to be here to argue today.

[00:02:10] Speaker 08:
And I know he was going to- No, no, he's not the appellant though.

[00:02:13] Speaker 08:
The appellant is Fab five.

[00:02:15] Speaker 08:
And I don't know how you are bringing a claim on behalf of the Chapter 7 debtor who is now dispossessed by the trustee on behalf of your husband.

[00:02:29] Speaker 06:
I think part of the problem, Your Honor, is that this has been rushed through the beginning.

[00:02:34] Speaker 06:
When we filed this, before all the papers were even due, the US trustee filed for dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7.

[00:02:42] Speaker 06:
We got no stay at all.

[00:02:45] Speaker 06:
uh... you know we tried to we tried to arrange with the chapter seven trustee the owner of the horses by then we discovered who owned them to pay for their expenses and to give us time to move along and we later found the same day she was filing

[00:03:01] Speaker 06:
request for an order shortening time on a motion to sell the horses.

[00:03:06] Speaker 06:
This has been rushed along.

[00:03:07] Speaker 06:
We requested a everything we know is that there was a fake auction of these horses.

[00:03:13] Speaker 06:
We've requested an evidentiary hearing and the first time we got a ruling on this was in the middle of another hearing and the judge gave us no time to bring in witnesses or produce to do the hearing.

[00:03:26] Speaker 07:
Excuse me though, but this is Judge Corbett.

[00:03:29] Speaker 06:
The problem is that it's been rushed so much that I think, you know, you raise a good point, but the way this has been rushed along, it hasn't been possible to really handle this.

[00:03:40] Speaker 07:
Well, but this is Judge Corbett.

[00:03:42] Speaker 07:
When you filed your notice of appeal, the facts that Judge Spraker just

[00:03:48] Speaker 07:
asked you about, in which you acknowledged you knew all of those things.

[00:03:52] Speaker 07:
So things might have been rushed, in your opinion, as for the sale of the horses and figuring out what was going to do there.

[00:03:58] Speaker 07:
But how were you rushed when you filed your notice of appeal?

[00:04:06] Speaker 05:
We'd been rushed all along.

[00:04:08] Speaker 05:
And on the sale of the horses, and we were still finding out facts on the ownership, I believe.

[00:04:15] Speaker 08:
Can I ask, this is Judge Breaker again.

[00:04:19] Speaker 08:
What exactly are you appealing, if you could walk me through that?

[00:04:25] Speaker 06:
Yeah, we're appealing that we weren't allowed to continue as a Chapter 11 and try and save the business and that the horses were sold.

[00:04:33] Speaker 06:
The court did not have jurisdiction to order the sale of horses that do not belong to Fab 5.

[00:04:38] Speaker 06:
That was known by the time the court ordered their sale.

[00:04:43] Speaker 08:
When I went back and we read your your briefs, both the opening and the reply, they seem to focus on due process.

[00:04:52] Speaker 08:
Yes.

[00:04:52] Speaker 08:
Are you is, is that what you arguing is that what decision should be be overturned as error due to lack of due process?

[00:05:04] Speaker 08:
There's two orders, right, the sale and the good faith determination.

[00:05:11] Speaker 08:
So can you walk me through that as applied to due process?

[00:05:15] Speaker 08:
And do you appeal anything else other than due process as to one or both of those orders?

[00:05:20] Speaker 06:
We assert due process as to both of those orders.

[00:05:24] Speaker 06:
And this fake auction should be set aside.

[00:05:28] Speaker 06:
And we should be allowed, whoever owns the horses now should be able to do a Chapter 11 or whatever is appropriate.

[00:05:35] Speaker 08:
Well, see, that gets back to the standing.

[00:05:39] Speaker 08:
If these horses are really your husbands, there's nothing in the bankruptcy to do.

[00:05:45] Speaker 08:
And your secure creditors should then be able to do whatever they have.

[00:05:49] Speaker 08:
The secure creditors that have a security interest against the horses have no say because, in your view, your husband owns those horses.

[00:06:01] Speaker 08:
And there is no bankruptcy for your husband.

[00:06:03] Speaker 08:
So again, that seems to be not right that there has been a stay now for seven horses that you say are not the debtors.

[00:06:17] Speaker 06:
Well, Your Honor, what we are appealing is due process and that the sale of the horses should not have been allowed because they are not assets of the bankruptcy.

[00:06:27] Speaker 06:
And a good-face settlement order should not be allowed because it was, as far as we can find out, not a commercially reasonable or legitimate auction.

[00:06:37] Speaker 06:
And we were not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing on that.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
I'm going to jump in for just a second.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
I just realized a minute or two ago that the courtroom clock isn't working.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
So I'm going to kind of roughly work from my watch.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
And I'm just going to say that you have about three minutes left before your 10 minutes is up.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
And then you'll have five more minutes after that.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
So please go on.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry about the clock not working, but please go ahead.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:07:00] Speaker 06:
No, that's fine.

[00:07:01] Speaker 06:
At this point, I would ask your honors have any further questions?

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
Not at this time.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
I don't?

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
So you've now, I'll give you eight minutes for your rebuttal, just since we're kind of roughing things out without a clock.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
So Ms.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
Dye, Ms.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
Culver, how do you want to divide up the 15 minutes for the appellees?

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
We've agreed that I'll take the first 10 minutes or 12 minutes or so of the time and then Ms.

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
Culver will sum up for the last three.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
Judge Breaker's got a timer on his iPad here, so we'll use that instead.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
So please go ahead.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
Judges, I actually have an accurate clock here, so I can let you.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
It's visible, just not to you.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
Oh, that's handy.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
So I will waive you.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
We'll have the clerk do it.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
All right, so one, two, three, go.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
You know, this case falls into the trustee category of no good deed goes unpunished, basically.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
When I was assigned this case, I did what trustees do.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
I looked at the evidence related to what the property was in the estate.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
I reviewed the situation with creditors who had claims.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
I took the actions that are all documented in the docket.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
to procure an order to sell the five horses that could be sold to or abandoned back to the Lindholm's at the end of that process as not being sold.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
And what was achieved here by the good question that the court has asked is what was the purpose of filing this case?

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
And I think Ms.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
Lindholm has summed it up.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
very aptly.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
She and her husband who are purportedly involved with this LLC filed this case because of the impending orders in the state court that were going to require them to either post a very significant bond or have those horses auctioned pursuant to state law to cover what were then the material liens that had accrued for care and boarding of the horses.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
So when we got to this point of the case being converted, because there was no compliance at the early stage with the sub five chapter requirements, there was a dialogue between me and the secured creditors.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
I obtained a stipulation for a carve out and a sale of the horses pursuant to that.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
I filed the proper motions as the record reflects.

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
And the court held a very detailed hearing and made extensive findings of fact.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
Unless those findings are clearly wrong, those are binding in the law of the case.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
Unless this judge made an error of law, her firm conviction that you find that she made an error of law, all of those findings are final findings.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
Let me ask you this.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
There were two decisions.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
One was the decision to approve the sale and the second was the good faith decision.

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
Was there a request for an evidentiary hearing with respect to the first decision, the approval of the sale?

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
And an opposition was filed by the Lindholms to the extent that there was an opposition.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
It was considered by the court.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
The court made detailed findings that the Lindholms were stopped

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
from denying that the horses were property of the estate based on various pleadings and inconsistencies filed.

[00:10:58] Speaker 08:
What were the inconsistencies that the court relied upon for the estoppel?

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Well, you know, in one case, the horses belonged to Carolyn Lindholm.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
In another case, they belonged to the LLC.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
In another case, they belonged to Robert Lindholm.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
They never really, it was all what was convenient in my opinion as to what they were saying about who owned the horses.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
that there was no evidence presented.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
That's the key here.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
There was never any documentary evidence that was submitted to the court.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
Let me stick on the estoppel point.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
You know, there has to be both inconsistent statements and the party has to have benefited from one set of those statements.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
So how did Fab 5 or anybody on that side of the table benefit

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
from the initial representation that Fab 5 owned the horses.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
Are you speaking about the facts as presented in the state court or in this case?

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
I'm unclear.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
I'll leave that to you to choose.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
There's a judicial estoppel.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
So what the judicial estoppel has to say, you take two different positions, you benefited from taking one of them, you're stuck with that one position.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
So what was the benefit

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
that Fab Five got from taking the position that it owned the horses.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
In this bankruptcy case, the benefit was very clear.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
What they were doing was avoiding the imminent order, entry of an order to require an auction of the horses in the state by the state court or the posting of a very significant bond, $128,000 of a bond to avoid that and continue the litigation in that case

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
as to what rights the the the Lindholms or LLC had in the horses given the fact that the boarding fees and the training fees had not been paid.

[00:12:56] Speaker 01:
So the benefit was the automatic stay basically?

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
Exactly.

[00:12:59] Speaker 08:
Well we've interrupted you I think I understand from the record but I want to I want to make sure

[00:13:08] Speaker 08:
My understanding is that no documentary evidence, any registration, certificate of ownership, and the record's really unclear how you establish ownership of a horse.

[00:13:19] Speaker 08:
But no document was ever presented to you?

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
No document was what I requested very early on in the case, evidence that whose the horses belonged to.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
What was presented in the case to me were the boarding

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
agreements signed by Carolyn Lindholm as an agent for the LLC.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
In those documents, she represented that the LLC owned the horses.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
That was the party that was entering into the boarding agreements.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
So at the point in time when I get involved in this mess, if you will,

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
What I had was a secured creditor who had documents saying that the LLC, which was the debtor, owed significant amounts for boarding and training of the horses.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
The Lindholms or the LLC never presented any other documents beside the unsupported declarations of Robert Lindholm presented at various points in the cases I've referenced in my

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
in my brief.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
So the order that's being appealed from, which is the only order being appealed from, which is the sale order, was well supported by the record in front of the bankruptcy court.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
And unless this court finds that she made an error of that there were no facts to support it,

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
and that she made an error of law, that order is a good order.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
And the reason that we went to a good faith finding hearing later was because at the time we did not know who was going to buy the horses, and we did not know at the auction, and we did not know what the pricest bid would be.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
And so at that point,

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
The judge said, I can't make a good faith finding yet.

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
You can come back later and do that.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:15:27] Speaker 07:
Dye, this is Judge Corbett.

[00:15:30] Speaker 07:
At the time the bankruptcy was filed, as you mentioned, the purpose was to get a stay.

[00:15:36] Speaker 07:
At that point in time, had Mr. Lindholm ever asserted that he owned the horses?

[00:15:42] Speaker 07:
When did he first assert that he was the owner?

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
Well into the case after it was clear that there was going to be a disposition of the horses.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
In the petition, the secured creditors are listed, the only secured creditors and the only creditors listed were the trainer and the ranch.

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
And the only property listed was the horses as property of the bankruptcy estate in the petition, a very skinny petition that they filed.

[00:16:12] Speaker 07:
Yeah.

[00:16:12] Speaker 07:
And that petition was signed by?

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
Robert Lindholm.

[00:16:18] Speaker 08:
While we're interrupting you, Ms.

[00:16:20] Speaker 08:
Stein, this is Judge Spraker.

[00:16:21] Speaker 08:
Can you address the matter that I raised?

[00:16:24] Speaker 08:
It seems to me, picking up the record cold, that Fab Five is the party that opposed the sale.

[00:16:32] Speaker 08:
It is now the party that appeals.

[00:16:34] Speaker 08:
In my understanding, I don't know what I'm missing.

[00:16:40] Speaker 08:
You have not authorized FAB 5.

[00:16:42] Speaker 08:
You have not instituted a appeal for FAB 5.

[00:16:47] Speaker 08:
Why does Ms.

[00:16:49] Speaker 08:
Lindholm have the ability to represent FAB 5 on appeal in this matter?

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I don't believe she does.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
But I didn't really cross that bridge in my briefing because, frankly, the procedural posture taken by the

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
the Ms.

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
Lynn Holm and as a result, her then client, ostensibly the LLC, has been so confused and so disjointed in terms of compliance with anything related to bankruptcy code provisions that I didn't really address that.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
I wanted to go to the substance more of what's this about anyway and whose horses are they?

[00:17:36] Speaker 08:
So are you treating this essentially as Mr. Lindholm is really the appellant?

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
I'm not going to go that far.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
I am saying that there's no basis for the appeal.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
Whether it's because of standing, lack of standing, because it's filed by the wrong party, or because of the substance of the matter, which is to say that the property was indeed found to be property of the bankruptcy estate.

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
It was sold pursuant to

[00:18:05] Speaker 08:
And in order that was standard issue a bankruptcy sale order Yes, sir Well you mentioned also just moving on quickly because I don't want to monopolize your time But you also mentioned the only order on appeal was a sale order is it your position that?

[00:18:24] Speaker 08:
The second appeal did not capture the good faith issue.

[00:18:27] Speaker 08:
I know I don't think I saw that in your briefing.

[00:18:29] Speaker ?:
I

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
I would say that yesterday.

[00:18:32] Speaker 03:
The only order that was cited as on the record as being the subject of this appeal was the order authorizing the sale.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
You're about 11 minutes in.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
I'll just point that out to you so you can reserve enough time for Ms.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
Culver.

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
I would just offer in closing in my time that the bankruptcy court here was

[00:19:03] Speaker 03:
allowed a lot of leeway, if you will, to this debtor and the debtor's representatives because it was pretty clear that they didn't have much training or familiarity with the bankruptcy code or the requirements once you're in bankruptcy.

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
So the bottom line also is that there were secured creditors who filed a stipulation allowing the property of the debtor to be sold

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
so that their claims could at least be partially paid, and they could be relieved of the obligation to provide care for these horses that were still in the stalls.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
So they eat every day.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
Horses eat twice a day.

[00:19:44] Speaker 03:
They have to get out of their stalls.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
They need lots of care and loving, and they weren't getting it.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
And the longer they stayed in the stall, the less value they had.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
So the reason for an auction

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
frankly was to eliminate in additional cost and to provide a way for the horses to have a better life and standing in the stall for months at a time.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
So I'll defer to Ms.

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
Culver and let her sum up.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
Go ahead, Ms.

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
Culver.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
I will come to be brief.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
I do not have much to add to this discussion other than rely on our papers.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
This has been a long-standing litigation nightmare with the Lynn Holmes since the state court and even before that.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
It's spanning almost 10 years now in litigation regarding these horses and their non-payment for services related to the horses.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
This is simply a newest rendition of that.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
My clients have attempted to work with Ms.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
Dye and Ms.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
Lindholm as much as we can to get the money owed to my clients, the creditors, and do the best thing for the horses.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
This appeal has no basis and it has no evidence supporting it.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
They have

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
relied Ms.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
Lindholm and Fab 5 have relied heavily on declarations of Robert Lindholm, which have been self-serving at each turn.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
Fab 5 has owned the horses in certain litigation cases, as Ms.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
Dai has mentioned.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
Carolyn Lindholm has been asserted as the owner of the horses in other situations.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
And then, of course, Robert Lindholm has been named as the owner of the horses in tertiary litigation and statements.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
Fab 5 and Carol Lynn Holm have both sued on behalf of issues related to the horses in the past.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
Robert Lynn Holm, I believe, and I do not know this for a fact, but he has not, at least in my research and my understanding of the history of these horses in these cases.

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to try and answer them, but I hope that sums up Ms.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
Dye's argument as well.

[00:22:07] Speaker 08:
You have about a minute left, and I just wanted to know if you wanted to add anything on the good faith.

[00:22:11] Speaker 08:
We really haven't heard from your side of the aisle on any of the good faith issues, including, if you care, what we've been told is the pending request for a 2004 exam.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
I'd like to address that, please, if I may.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
The good faith findings were based upon evidence presented to the court by way of declaration that these were

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
disinterested buyers that there was active bidding on the horses, the horses where there was not a bid sufficient to make it worthwhile for the ranch to

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
allow it to close at that price were credit bid, and those amounts will be deducted from their claim.

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
The proceeds received were disappointing in the way because they won't satisfy the claims in full, but it did end the process of this long-standing controversy, hopefully.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
And the horses have been in the possession of these buyers now for months.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
So that's sort of like a lot of water under the bridge as it relates to you know retaking possessions and going back to square one that really wouldn't be a Feasible honestly so all right.

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
You're at the 15-minute marker a little past it actually so we'll go back to Is Lindholm and let me ask can miss Lindholm see a clock or?

[00:23:44] Speaker 06:
No, I can't but I Okay, what I have will only take a few minutes your honor

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
Well, I'll give you a maximum of eight and you certainly don't need to take all that time if you don't wish to.

[00:23:52] Speaker 01:
So please go ahead.

[00:23:54] Speaker 06:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:23:55] Speaker 06:
Again, Ms.

[00:23:56] Speaker 06:
Dye and Ms.

[00:23:57] Speaker 06:
Culver have repeatedly misrepresented the history of these horses to this court, and Ms.

[00:24:02] Speaker 06:
Culver is misrepresented to the state court, claiming that they were... Ms.

[00:24:06] Speaker 08:
Lindholm, this is Judge Breaker again.

[00:24:09] Speaker 08:
How do we know based upon the record before us?

[00:24:15] Speaker 06:
I have disputed these claims about prior stables that were not paid.

[00:24:20] Speaker 06:
I have disputed that.

[00:24:22] Speaker 08:
That's the dispute.

[00:24:23] Speaker 08:
What is the contra evidence?

[00:24:25] Speaker 08:
What is the evidence that you have submitted that establishes not only that there's a dispute, but that the factual findings based upon the evidence that the trustee presented is clearly erroneous?

[00:24:38] Speaker 06:
Because they have no basis for what they've stated.

[00:24:40] Speaker 06:
And I've submitted declarations explaining that this is not the case.

[00:24:44] Speaker 06:
And these prior cases they cite that were for not payment, they're not true.

[00:24:50] Speaker 08:
But there's two.

[00:24:51] Speaker 08:
You do state that.

[00:24:53] Speaker 08:
And the trustee submitted declarations she stated.

[00:24:57] Speaker 08:
And then you got to what the bankruptcy court was willing to have an evidentiary.

[00:25:01] Speaker 08:
And she made a decision based upon two sets of facts that were given.

[00:25:08] Speaker 07:
Well, was there two sets of facts?

[00:25:10] Speaker 07:
Because we have one set of facts.

[00:25:12] Speaker 07:
We have the stable agreements.

[00:25:14] Speaker 07:
I'm not sure exactly if that's what you call them, but the agreements with the stables.

[00:25:19] Speaker 07:
I understand that you signed those Ms.

[00:25:21] Speaker 07:
Lindholm and in those documents you represented that the LLC owned the horses.

[00:25:27] Speaker 07:
So there is some evidence that the LLC, the debtor here, owned the horses.

[00:25:33] Speaker 07:
There's evidence that the LLC filed the bankruptcy for the purposes of getting a stay.

[00:25:38] Speaker 07:
We have that evidence.

[00:25:40] Speaker 07:
The trial court had that evidence.

[00:25:42] Speaker 07:
What evidence is there to contradict that?

[00:25:47] Speaker 06:
They don't have evidence of what they're claiming.

[00:25:50] Speaker 07:
Well, they're claiming that the LLC owned the horses, and I just summarized for you evidence that supports the trial court's finding that the LLC did in fact own the horses.

[00:26:03] Speaker 07:
What do we have other than unsupported allegations that some other entity owns the horses?

[00:26:10] Speaker 06:
I think it's been very clear.

[00:26:11] Speaker 06:
The court was looking at declarations from the state court action as well as in the bankruptcy.

[00:26:23] Speaker 06:
It's very simple.

[00:26:25] Speaker 06:
Robert Lindholm bought the horses in Europe.

[00:26:28] Speaker 06:
At a later time, after they started to get approved for breeding, they were supposed to be transferred to the LLC.

[00:26:35] Speaker 06:
And declarations he did and I did thereafter was that the Fab Five owned the horses.

[00:26:44] Speaker 06:
Those are very consistent.

[00:26:46] Speaker 06:
The declarations on that and the evidence on that has been very consistent.

[00:26:49] Speaker 06:
Then, when the accountant died and it was discovered that Robert Lindholm still owned the horses, that's when we corrected it.

[00:26:57] Speaker 08:
Where is the evidence supporting that?

[00:26:59] Speaker 08:
Where is the specifics, the who, what, when, how?

[00:27:03] Speaker 08:
Where is that in the record, other than you saying it?

[00:27:08] Speaker 06:
Well, that's an interesting point, Your Honor, because the bankruptcy court in ordering the sale of these horses looked to the fact that we had previously stated in declarations that Fab Five owned the horses.

[00:27:24] Speaker 06:
We explained why they didn't, and the judge decided that

[00:27:30] Speaker 06:
Well, we've said different things at different times, even though we had a valid explanation as to why.

[00:27:35] Speaker 06:
So it's the question to the court.

[00:27:38] Speaker 06:
What basis did the court have when we've explained why there was this problem?

[00:27:43] Speaker 08:
Charitably speaking, the court didn't believe you.

[00:27:46] Speaker 07:
Yeah.

[00:27:47] Speaker 07:
And at best, Ms.

[00:27:48] Speaker 07:
Lindholm, isn't it that there was a bona fide dispute?

[00:27:52] Speaker 07:
That's the best that you have is that there was a dispute as to who owned the horses.

[00:27:57] Speaker 07:
But Ms.

[00:27:57] Speaker 07:
Dye has summarized evidence that showed that the horses were owned by the LLC.

[00:28:04] Speaker 07:
I mean, the best you're saying is that there was a dispute.

[00:28:10] Speaker 07:
And if there's a dispute, 363 allows for a sale.

[00:28:17] Speaker 07:
Is that right?

[00:28:21] Speaker 06:
But the court has sold horses that do not belong to the estate.

[00:28:27] Speaker 08:
I'm sorry.

[00:28:29] Speaker 08:
I think I asked Ms.

[00:28:31] Speaker 08:
Dai when I asked you.

[00:28:32] Speaker 08:
I thought that I read in the record that there were statements made both to the court and Ms.

[00:28:38] Speaker 08:
Dai that you would provide evidence of registration or ownership in documentary form to the trustee in the court.

[00:28:48] Speaker 06:
And when we were before Judge Klein, I believe it was the motion for sale, Robert Lindholm was on the phone and he agreed to produce these documents and then the court continued the hearing to another date and said she would allow no further arguments and there was no further request for any of those documents.

[00:29:05] Speaker 06:
And at that point we had very clearly explained the problems and there was no indication that the explanations in our declarations as to what had occurred were being questioned.

[00:29:18] Speaker 08:
Well, that gets to the problem of if there were documents that establish it, why weren't they submitted prior or even after?

[00:29:24] Speaker 06:
Well, I think it's got to be declarations because what we have is we discovered that the accountant did not transfer the horses to Fab 5, so there's not documentation showing they were transferred to Fab 5.

[00:29:41] Speaker 06:
There's been no question that Robert Lindholm bought the horses.

[00:29:45] Speaker 06:
What the court doesn't have is any, at this point, any documentation that Fab 5 owns them.

[00:29:51] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:29:51] Speaker 07:
And after you discovered that, did Robert Lindholm ever pay to feed the horses?

[00:29:56] Speaker 06:
He offered to.

[00:29:57] Speaker 06:
We offered to do this with Carol and Di.

[00:30:00] Speaker 06:
He offered to have them move to another place.

[00:30:02] Speaker 06:
He would pay all their expenses, training, feed, everything.

[00:30:06] Speaker 06:
And she said, fine, please submit a stipulation.

[00:30:10] Speaker 06:
I prepared the stipulation.

[00:30:12] Speaker 06:
And then I found out that that very day she was making a motion to order shortening time to sell the horses.

[00:30:19] Speaker 06:
He is offered.

[00:30:24] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:30:24] Speaker 06:
So this whole mad rush to sell the horses is fake because he offered to take care of the horses, pay all their expenses, get them back in training, which would help their value so we could get them re-inspected and get their stallion approvals back.

[00:30:38] Speaker 06:
He offered to take care of that, which would have kept their value up.

[00:30:42] Speaker 06:
We had breeding contracts that we were not able to fill.

[00:30:46] Speaker 08:
We being who?

[00:30:47] Speaker 06:
And if I may address one other point just quickly.

[00:30:54] Speaker 06:
When Ms.

[00:30:55] Speaker 06:
Dye talks about the bankruptcy was filed to avoid a sale of the horses, during a motion for possession of the horses previously in the state court, I had raised the code section

[00:31:07] Speaker 06:
about allowing us to post a bond to get possession of the horses and the judge wouldn't hear it at that time.

[00:31:14] Speaker 06:
The first time she had a minute order

[00:31:20] Speaker 06:
was after the bankruptcy was filed when she no longer had jurisdiction over the horses.

[00:31:25] Speaker 06:
And at that time, she said a bond could be posted.

[00:31:28] Speaker 06:
And Robert Lindholm contacted a bonding company and was ready to post a bond.

[00:31:33] Speaker 06:
But at that point, the Superior Court judge had no jurisdiction over the horses because there was a bankruptcy.

[00:31:38] Speaker 06:
They were in bankruptcy as far as we knew at that time.

[00:31:43] Speaker 01:
Okay, I think your eight minutes are exhausted, so thank you very much all sides for your arguments the matter is submitted And you'll be getting our written decision promptly.

[00:31:53] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:31:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:31:55] Speaker 00:
Thank you honors Madam clerk