[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Greta Curtis, Appellant in Pro Se, Robert A. Brown, Council for Appellee, Amec Investments, LLC.

[00:00:18] Speaker 05:
Would you like to reserve any time for your reply?

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
Yes, about five minutes.

[00:00:24] Speaker 05:
All right, maybe.

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
I think this is a very simple case, and the issues are very simple, although they've been basically convoluted in order to get us here today.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
My main focus and points are that, number one, Mr. Brown is suspended from practicing in the bankruptcy court.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
That is on the bankruptcy site.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
that he's a non-compliant attorney.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
He represented Amic Investments 2 Inc.

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
in this case, in an adversary case, and which is not allowed because... Well, his suspension was for ECF privileges, wasn't it?

[00:01:13] Speaker 05:
Yes, it was.

[00:01:14] Speaker 05:
And it was.

[00:01:14] Speaker 05:
I mean, that is not a disqualifying event.

[00:01:18] Speaker 05:
That means that you can't file electronically.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
Well, I think... I'm sorry.

[00:01:25] Speaker ?:
Go ahead.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
I think he had duties that he did not follow up on.

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
One was to pay a $500 fine.

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
The other was to make application ex parte to be readmitted to practice before the bankruptcy court.

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
That's why the information is still on the website that he has not complied.

[00:01:42] Speaker 05:
But I think, you know, to your point.

[00:01:46] Speaker 05:
This is on appeal.

[00:01:47] Speaker 05:
The bankruptcy court didn't take it as disqualifying.

[00:01:51] Speaker 05:
That's the bankruptcy court's policies to police.

[00:01:55] Speaker 05:
So I'm not sure that that gets you where you want to go, even if we were to agree, because it's done.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
Well, that's just one of the things.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
And I wanted to bring that to the attention of the court, because it was my understanding that the courts determine who can practice before them and who can't.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
it was surprising to see that there, and so I did bring it to the bankruptcy court's attention.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
The second thing is that the appellee has pursued this case, or pursued this adversary, and they didn't, and there was no jurisdiction.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
And when I say there was no subject matter jurisdiction, nor personal jurisdiction, because of the simple fact that the appellee

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
was a suspended corporation at the time it transferred the deed to my company.

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
It was suspended by the Franchise Tax Board for not paying taxes.

[00:02:51] Speaker 02:
It revived itself and upon revival, the law basically, California Revenue and Taxation Code indicates that a condition of the reviver is that the suspended corporation cannot disavow agreements that it entered into while it was suspended.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
other parties to the agreement made, meaning my company or myself.

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
However, an appellee could not disavow the transfer of the property.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
The other issue, another issue is that the declaratory relief actions were not, there was no substantive law supporting the declaratory relief actions.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
Appellee had already received a judgment in state court that the deed was void,

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
That wasn't good either or that wasn't valid either because the deed was void at the time that I conveyed the property or at the time it conveyed, Appellee conveyed its ownership interest, its title ownership interest to my company, to Sisters.

[00:03:57] Speaker 02:
Appellee no longer had any ownership in that property.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
And the only way for it to set aside a transfer was for it to basically allege some type of fraud on my behalf that I participated in or that sisters participated in to acquire the deed from an appellee.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
And in that case, we did have a trial.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
We had a civil trial in state court, and there was a finding that I had not engaged in fraud.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
That precluded any further

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
litigation of a set aside.

[00:04:35] Speaker 05:
Well, no, not technically did it.

[00:04:37] Speaker 05:
I mean, it certainly precluded any further incident of fraud or anything based upon that fraud.

[00:04:44] Speaker 05:
But reading the state court's decision, it was for professional conduct.

[00:04:50] Speaker 05:
And that decision, written decision, is very clear that that is the basis in the Shepard-Mullin case and the applicable provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct.

[00:05:00] Speaker 05:
That's an independent basis, isn't it?

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
Well, yes, that's true, but the problem with that is the professional conduct allegations were dismissed in that state court case in BC 610-877 early on.

[00:05:17] Speaker 02:
I put those documents in my 12b6 motion when appellee filed this adversary proceeding and to point out to the judge,

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
even though the memorandum of decision has this information, and it's not supported by the law.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
It was already dismissed.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
And if you look at the memorandum of decision and the judgment that was actually rendered in that case, if there was a finding that I had violated professional rules of conduct, then Judge Stern would have been within the law, or he would have his decision to hold me liable

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
And the judgment would have been accurate and would have been correct.

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
But he didn't.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
He dismissed me.

[00:06:04] Speaker 05:
Well, he dismissed you.

[00:06:06] Speaker 05:
And then the only cause of action remaining was to cancel MXD to sisters-in-law, correct?

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, but it was already canceled.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
It was canceled by the command.

[00:06:20] Speaker 05:
Well, that's not what the court found.

[00:06:22] Speaker 05:
And the court went ahead and had a hearing, if not trial, default judgment hearing immediately afterwards on that cause of action.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
Well, even with that, a corporation

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
acts through its employees, or LLC acts through its employees.

[00:06:41] Speaker 02:
So if I was found not liable or culpable for fraud, then that particular finding inured to the benefit of sisters.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
Well, but that's as to the fraud.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
Isn't the issue dealing with

[00:06:59] Speaker 04:
the legal services that you violated California law with providing those legal services.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
That doesn't necessarily have to be fraud.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
No, it doesn't have to be fraud.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
And reading the record, it seems like that was the basis.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
Because you had violated the California law or the responsibilities as an attorney, you weren't entitled to attorney's fees.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
And the deed was to pay for attorney's fees.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
Don't those two things get tied together?

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
No, I don't think so.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
And the reason why I say that is because the deed for the attorney fees was paid to me.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
We had a seven-day, 12-person jury that held I did not commit fraud.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
In order to do a quiet title action to set aside the- But this wasn't a quiet title action at the end.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:07:49] Speaker 05:
It was only to cancel one deed.

[00:07:51] Speaker 05:
That's why you were dismissed.

[00:07:53] Speaker 05:
The party, as to that last cause of action, was sisters-in-law.

[00:07:58] Speaker 05:
That's all that was being done by that point in time is, is that conveyance avoidable?

[00:08:05] Speaker 05:
And based upon the default and non-appearance of sisters, default judgment was entered after testimony was heard or evidence presented by AMEC.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
Okay well the issue is that Sisters-in-Law at the time the lawsuit was commenced and at the time the judgment was rendered did not have ownership of that piece of property.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
I want to go back to the beginning okay.

[00:08:30] Speaker 04:
And you got a deed for legal services.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
For services as a lawyer.

[00:08:36] Speaker 04:
But then the state court ruled that you had violated rule 3-310C3 and 3-300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

[00:08:48] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:08:48] Speaker 04:
It's not that you committed fraud, but that you didn't follow the California code as an attorney.

[00:08:55] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
And that's why you weren't entitled to attorney's fees and therefore not entitled to a deed for the attorney's fees.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
Well, I beg to differ, Your Honor, because number one, Amec was suspended when it transferred that property to me upon refinery.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
But you got the property.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
You got the property for fees.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
And the court said you're not entitled to fees, in essence, because you didn't follow the California rule.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
But I wasn't there.

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
You can't kick me out of the case.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
and take a defaulted defendant.

[00:09:30] Speaker 05:
That's the difference between, I mean, as you're aware, there's you individually, and then there's your entities, which are separate.

[00:09:39] Speaker 05:
And as Judge Corbin indicated, ultimately, this was to pay your fees.

[00:09:45] Speaker 05:
But the cornerstone of all of this is the transfer from amic to sisters.

[00:09:50] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:09:51] Speaker 05:
And sisters didn't show, right?

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
Yes, it didn't have to.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
It didn't have a dog in the fight, Your Honor.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
The transfer happened May 6, 2014.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
And then I transferred, Amic to Sisters was May 6, 2014.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
And then on May 19, I transferred the property from Sisters to Dr. Roots.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
So at the time that all of these losses were commenced, Sisters did not have a ownership interest.

[00:10:20] Speaker 05:
didn't have the ownership, but it was the first in the series, in the chain.

[00:10:24] Speaker 02:
That's true.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
That's true.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
But in order for you to set aside the transfer, you have to have a underlying basis, undue influence, fraud.

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
Lack of consideration.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
That too.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
Which is what the attorney's fees determination meant with regard to the, you're the initial transferee.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
But the issue is that they made a promise.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
AMIC made a promise while it was suspended.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
And California Revenue and Taxation Code says you can't, AMIC could not disavow that promise.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
It went through with it.

[00:11:02] Speaker 05:
Ultimately, I mean, I think you're aware you're under five minutes, but ultimately, the biggest problem is that's a valid state court judgment.

[00:11:13] Speaker 05:
We are not able to re-examine that judgment, are we?

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
No, I agree with you.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
You're not.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
And that's what Judge Russell did.

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
Judge Russell reexamined that state court judgment.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
He found that I violated professional rules of responsibility, which the judgment does not say that.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
The judgment dismissed me.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
If Judge Stern found that I violated the law, he would have surely made that judgment against me.

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
Not only that, appellee dismissed me.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
A 12-person jury dismissed me, held in my favor.

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
So you take me out because you don't want to deal with revenue and taxation code suspension.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
So I can't come in and testify on behalf of sisters.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
It's in default.

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
Knife Circus says if an individual or company doesn't have an interest in the property, it doesn't have to fight.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
There was nothing for Sisters to fight.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
Sisters gave up its ownership interest in 2014.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
It's a recorded document, 2014.

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
This lawsuit was filed in 2016.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
BC-610-877 state court action was filed in 2016.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
You only have one year to go against an attorney for malpractice, which they did in that lawsuit two years later.

[00:12:38] Speaker 02:
That was precluded.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
That was dismissed too, also.

[00:12:42] Speaker 02:
So what we have here is a situation where Appellee took his state court judgment.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
over to bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy court reinterpreted it and changed that judgment, that state court judgment, and it changed it because now Judge Russell is holding me liable for violation of professional rules of conduct, which that was dismissed from the BC-610-877 case.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
The negligence was dismissed.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
That's malpractice too.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
That was dismissed too.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
What we have here is a reinterpretation of a state court judgment.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
That's impermissible.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
You cannot do that.

[00:13:23] Speaker 05:
I want to remind you that you're at two minutes.

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
I'll risk.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
I'll let Mr. Brown go.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:13:28] Speaker 05:
Just want to make sure you're on.

[00:13:29] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:31] Speaker ?:
Sure.

[00:13:31] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:13:31] Speaker 05:
Counsel?

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
I'm Robert Brown for the appellee amic Okay, so some short responses here judge Russell never

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
In any of the records here, oral argument, I was there at all of them, ruled or stated that at some point in time in the past, Greta Curtis had committed unethical conduct.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
That was never independently in front of him.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
We had no trial for that, motion for summary judgment, nothing to do with that.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
He was just reading the state court judgment.

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
And the case is very simple.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
Once we, my client, elected to void the deed, its deed from two sisters-in-law, Greta Curtis's LLC, which was established and not disputed in the state courts, that it was for attorney's fees, just as stated in Judge Stern's statement of decision and the judgment, then we have to chase down the other deeds that Greta Curtis had been signing

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
I mean, just frankly and bottom line is just to keep making us chase this through her various LLCs so we can finally get our property back.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
So then we have to go to the next step and chase down the Sisters-in-Law to Roots deed, which she signed.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
She controls Sisters-in-Law.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
She controls Dr. Roots.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
But she put Dr. Roots into a Chapter 11, so we had to chase her down in front of Judge Russell.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
It had been years since I'd been in front of Judge Russell, so I'll tell you, I actually enjoyed it somewhat.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
So, okay, so we do that and do the summary judgment.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
It is a very simple case.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
If the deed from Sisters-in-Law to Dr. Roots, if Dr. Roots had no association with Greta Curtis, if it had been some investment company, etc., paid good consideration, had no idea that Greta Curtis was involved with Sisters-in-Law and was doing unethical attorneys fees,

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
Well, that would have been the end.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
We can't get the property back in that situation.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
But that's not the case.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
She controls sisters-in-law.

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
She controls Dr. Roots.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
So that's fairly straightforward to chase down and elect to avoid that deed.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
So then Greta Curtis had signed two pocket deeds, which are in the record.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
One is that

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
Exhibit F to our motion for summary judgment was the corporation quick claim deed to Greta Curtis.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
So she says in a declaration that she filed, and I mention this, I state this in the brief, toward the end here, page, where is that now?

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I start that discussion at page 42 of our brief.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
She signed a deed from Dr. Roots to herself.

[00:17:04] Speaker 01:
And on the same day, she signed her deed back to Dr. Roots.

[00:17:08] Speaker 01:
And I've listed that at page 42.

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
She stated that in her declaration.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
That was doc three, page 37 to 50.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
And I described that at page 42 of her brief.

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
Blagrantly committed a straw buyer transaction.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
So, counsel, maybe you could help us with the claim that she makes that the bankruptcy court interpreted the judgment and made a finding of either fraud or malpractice or something else, rather than just simply saying there was a lack of consideration found by the state court for the transfer.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
It's actually not a lack of consideration.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
There is attorney's fee.

[00:17:49] Speaker 01:
So it wasn't actually a lack of consideration.

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
And the motion for summary judgment did not go that route, because there's two elements to BFP.

[00:18:00] Speaker 05:
And when you say the motion of summary judgment, that's in front of the bankruptcy court.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:18:04] Speaker 05:
Well, I think he's getting to the underlying voiding of the deed in the state court.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
In the state court?

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
Oh, well, in the state court, that's an unethical attorney fee.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
So it's not a question of whether there's, I mean, there is considered, it's a deed.

[00:18:22] Speaker 03:
But she couldn't get paid because she committed ethical violations.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
So there wasn't any real value transferred to the entity for the transfer.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:18:33] Speaker 01:
So under the rule, an attorney, the California state rule, under the attorney who has multiple clients in a case,

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
and is going to take a fee, and also in certain circumstances, a fee in the form of an interest in the client's property, you have to have a written agreement.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
And you have to have the other clients, you have to disclose to the other clients that maybe there's gonna be a conflict in the future, and so they have to understand this, waive those interests.

[00:19:11] Speaker 01:
Attorneys generally will avoid going too far with the weeds on that because that's a very risky thing for an attorney.

[00:19:19] Speaker 01:
Okay, but there are rules and it can be done.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
She did none of that, OK?

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
So that's it.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
I mean, that deed is gone.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
Now under Shepard-Mullen, you see that you can't.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
Counsel, before you get there, I mean, I'm trying to make this easier to understand here.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
But if appellant prevails is your argument.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
If appellant prevails in her arguments, she will get paid for fees for which she was not entitled.

[00:19:47] Speaker 01:
Well, that's true.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
Well, that's the essence.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
That would be the effect of this is you would be nullifying the state court.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
Essentially, you'd be nullifying the state court judgment.

[00:19:58] Speaker 01:
Well, put the point on that, though.

[00:20:03] Speaker 05:
From your argument, is it that there's no fees that amic owes, or is it that this cannot be the payment for it because it was not given

[00:20:16] Speaker 05:
The interest in the property was not given with the requisite disclosure and consents.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
What we obtained in the state court was the latter.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
Not that she was not necessarily entitled to be paid at all.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
Shepard Mullin says, the major thing with Shepard Mullin is that the California Supreme Court said that even though you're the attorney, you violated all these rules, et cetera, you can still sue in quantum heroin.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
And so that was left open.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
So Greta Curtis could, I mean, we're talking about many years ago now, Greta Curtis could have filed a quantum merit case.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
And I'll just represent to your honors, this issue is not really before the court, because maybe she could do that.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
Who cares if she could do that now?

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
It has nothing to do with our success here.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
But she did do that.

[00:21:05] Speaker 01:
I mean, as an officer of the court, I'll tell you, she did do a quantum merit case, and she lost.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
So that case was dismissed.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
But whether she can do that or she will try that in the future, I have no idea.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
We had to chase down sisters-in-law to Roots, Roots to Greta Curtis.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
Then she says that she did it back to herself, which raises an interesting question.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
Why are we here?

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
I mean, she gave the property back to Dr. Roots, and Dr. Roots is still in the chapter seven.

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
Okay, so... And Dr. Roots is not an appellant in this.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
Right, not an appellant.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
So just based on the record, she has no interest in this property.

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
She literally gave it back to Dr. Roots years ago.

[00:21:48] Speaker 01:
And Dr. Roots, and his honor said that Dr. Roots has no interest in it.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
But be that as it may, she has no interest in it.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
That's impossible.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
So then we have the $150,000 deed of trust.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
She assigned a deed of trust from Dr. Roots to her cousin Vincent Thames to muck up the title with a $150,000 deed of trust.

[00:22:12] Speaker 05:
But to your point, Judge Russell addressed that in the adversary, and that is not on appeal either.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
Really the only thing that is on appeal is Ms.

[00:22:20] Speaker 05:
Curtis's interest, which is the deed from Roots and back to Roots.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
I mean, bottom line is that regardless of all the other issues, I mean, that's a simple, straightforward answer to it is, Ms.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
Curtis, you gave the property back to Dr. Roots.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
Dr. Roots is in Chapter 7.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
Just Russell made his ruling.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
That's it.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
So can you address the one other issue that she raises, which is that somehow she's making a claim that Amec had no right to disavow the transfer because Amec was

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
disabled, so to speak, under the corporate structure law of California at the time.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
In other words, she's suggesting that Amec didn't have the right to bring a proceeding.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
Could you address that question?

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
Amec didn't have a right to bring a motion.

[00:23:09] Speaker 05:
You were essentially a suspended corporation, and therefore lacked the ability to.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
Oh, oh, OK.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
Now I understand.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
OK, so Greta Curtis raised this argument that at one time, it's about 10 years ago,

[00:23:23] Speaker 01:
Amic became suspended in California for non-payment of taxes, and she admits this, it got reinstated, and under California law, first of all, the idea, Greta Curtis said that the deed was already canceled, but that's not the case.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
If a company is suspended and engages in a transfer, let's say a property, that

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
Transfer is completely valid legally until the party, the other party comes in, not the, not amic who did the transfer.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
You can't use that as a sword to get out of contracts.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
But the other party can co has to come into court under California revenue and taxation code, file a lawsuit to void out that transaction.

[00:24:11] Speaker 05:
You're saying that it's avoidable, not void.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
It would be the wealth.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
It ended up neither because Greta Curtis never filed that lawsuit.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
Does that even matter at this point?

[00:24:27] Speaker 05:
I don't mean to be flip, but we have a valid state court judgment that addressed that.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
If AMIC had never been reinstated, we'd have an issue.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
It was reinstated almost 10 years ago.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
The issue is gone.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
She never filed a lawsuit to have anything voided out.

[00:24:44] Speaker 01:
That's the code.

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
And I've cited the case law.

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
There's no penalty.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
You don't go back retroactive.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
Oh, AMIC was suspended, so therefore it's lost certain rights, et cetera.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
That doesn't exist under California law.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
This argument about revenue and taxation code is a total red herring, a rabbit hole that goes nowhere.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
It's just a waste of time to waste.

[00:25:03] Speaker 01:
And she said this over and over again in various court cases, just to waste my time and my client's time.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
I mean, literally, that's what it is.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
I don't mean that pejoratively, but that's what it is.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
Judge Spraker's question, though.

[00:25:18] Speaker 04:
The California court has decided this issue.

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, it rejected this revenue and taxation code argument, but it doesn't matter because we're just focusing on the issue.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
Greta Curtis, did you follow ethical rules?

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
You didn't.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
You admit that that transfer to Sisters-in-Law was for your attorney's fees.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:25:43] Speaker 01:
So it's voidable by amic.

[00:25:45] Speaker 05:
My understanding of your argument is that the state court judgment decided that the initial transfer from amic to Sisters was void, and that's a given.

[00:25:55] Speaker 05:
And then the only thing really for Judge Russell to examine, accepting that the initial transfer was voided, is whether or not the subsequent transfrees were bona fide purchasers for value.

[00:26:07] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:26:08] Speaker 05:
And what was the evidence presented to Judge Russell that they were not?

[00:26:11] Speaker 05:
Who had the burden of proof on that issue?

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
The party that claims BFP status has the burden to show that he or she or it is a bona fide purchaser for value.

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
Greta Curtis's response is, no, I don't.

[00:26:22] Speaker 01:
I don't have to show that.

[00:26:24] Speaker 01:
Judge Russell said, I'm sorry, you do, and just refused to do it.

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
It was in the record, et cetera, and never offered any evidence of any bona fide anything.

[00:26:33] Speaker 01:
Didn't make the consideration argument, nothing, just ignored that and went off on tangents about revenue and taxation code and other things.

[00:26:41] Speaker 04:
But there is evidence in the record that the appellant was related to these other entities.

[00:26:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, she's the managing member of Sisters-in-Law, managing member of Dr. Roots.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
She controlled the whole show.

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
As I said before, if that hadn't been the case and we had been dealing with actual disinterested third party Dr. Roots, we would never have gotten to this point, but that's just not the case.

[00:27:09] Speaker 01:
She manipulated all of this to try to hang on to that property interest.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
And it didn't work then.

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
And I would submit that hopefully it's not going to work today.

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
And we can move on.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
My client can move on finally and get back its property.

[00:27:35] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I had to go through those subsequent deeds.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
That's all that the case was about.

[00:27:40] Speaker 01:
In the normal course of anything, the attorney would just stipulate, OK, file his or her quantum merriwood case, prove up your attorney's fees, et cetera.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
You may very well get an award of attorney's fees as an attorney.

[00:27:53] Speaker 01:
She didn't do that.

[00:27:54] Speaker 01:
I mean, she tried that, but she lost.

[00:27:57] Speaker 05:
Any other questions?

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
I don't have any other questions.

[00:28:01] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:28:02] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much.

[00:28:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:28:09] Speaker 05:
Ms.

[00:28:10] Speaker 05:
Curtis, I think you have squarely two minutes.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Robert, your glasses.

[00:28:18] Speaker 02:
Your glasses.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
First, I'd like to address also an issue that was in my brief.

[00:28:32] Speaker 02:
And that was in reference to appellee admitted transferring the property to sisters.

[00:28:39] Speaker 02:
on my behalf for attorney fees.

[00:28:41] Speaker 02:
That created a trust, okay?

[00:28:44] Speaker 02:
That meant that Amec was the trustee, Sisters was the, I mean, Amec was the trustor, Sisters was the trustee, and I was the beneficiary.

[00:28:55] Speaker 02:
The first cause of action in the adversary proceeding to cancel the Amec to Sisters deed, I was not included in that.

[00:29:03] Speaker 02:
I had a right to participate.

[00:29:05] Speaker 05:
I believe the thought that the first cause of action to be too tentacle was sisters to roots.

[00:29:11] Speaker 05:
There's a whole low cases premise that the amic to sisters is already void.

[00:29:15] Speaker 02:
I know.

[00:29:17] Speaker 02:
I think it was against amic.

[00:29:20] Speaker 02:
I might be miss.

[00:29:21] Speaker 02:
I could be wrong to you.

[00:29:22] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:29:22] Speaker 02:
But I believe that's what it was.

[00:29:24] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
And this issue about the professional responsibility, I forgot about this during the trial.

[00:29:30] Speaker 02:
But anyway, the entities, the other entities that are represented in state court were suspended or either defunct.

[00:29:41] Speaker 02:
So I had no ethical duty to notify companies that were not either franchise tax board

[00:29:50] Speaker 02:
approved to participate in the legal proceedings or that the appellee had terminated by dissolving.

[00:30:00] Speaker 02:
So that's a non-issue.

[00:30:03] Speaker 02:
The other issue is the professional rule

[00:30:07] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure where do you get, I'm going to take you over your time, but where do you get the conclusion that you don't have a duty to inform those parties even if the corporate status had lapsed?

[00:30:21] Speaker 02:
Well, because they were not my clients, number one.

[00:30:26] Speaker 02:
I couldn't represent dissolved and suspended companies.

[00:30:31] Speaker 04:
They were not my clients.

[00:30:33] Speaker 04:
I ask for your authority for it, because I'm not sure that that's the law.

[00:30:36] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, say that again.

[00:30:37] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure that that's the law that what you just stated.

[00:30:39] Speaker 02:
Well, it's against the law for an attorney to represent

[00:30:44] Speaker 02:
suspended or a dissolved corporation.

[00:30:49] Speaker 02:
They didn't have standing.

[00:30:50] Speaker 04:
But you're talking about notifying parties of something that was there.

[00:30:53] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:30:54] Speaker 04:
I think they're different.

[00:30:56] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:30:56] Speaker 02:
Well, the president of the company that I did represent, these were his companies.

[00:31:00] Speaker 02:
Whenever he would get into trouble, he would make new companies up, move forward.

[00:31:05] Speaker 02:
And then that meant either dissolve or let him go into suspension so his creditors couldn't come after him.

[00:31:10] Speaker 04:
But wouldn't you have had a duty to respond to that president?

[00:31:13] Speaker 02:
to respond to the president.

[00:31:15] Speaker 04:
Well, I didn't know.

[00:31:17] Speaker 02:
I didn't know.

[00:31:17] Speaker 02:
I came in to that case, someone else was handling it, and I came in as an associate.

[00:31:21] Speaker 02:
I didn't know.

[00:31:23] Speaker 02:
The professional rule issue was never tried against me in the BC 610-877 case.

[00:31:32] Speaker 02:
And then the other thing is, too, I have case law that says a memorandum or a statement of decision is not

[00:31:42] Speaker 02:
the holding of the case.

[00:31:45] Speaker 02:
That was drafted by Mr. Brown and probably Judge Stern in order, if I did take the case up on appeal, or if it did go up on appeal, the state court of appeals would have something to look at, something to figure out how Judge Stern came to the decision that he did.

[00:32:02] Speaker 02:
However, the professional rule issue was never decided against me.

[00:32:07] Speaker 02:
Even though it's in that memorandum, it was never litigated.

[00:32:12] Speaker 02:
You couldn't litigate it against Sisters because Sisters is not a legal corporation.

[00:32:18] Speaker 02:
Sisters.

[00:32:19] Speaker 05:
I think that we're about two minutes over now.

[00:32:22] Speaker 05:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:32:22] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much, though.

[00:32:25] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much.

[00:32:26] Speaker 05:
With that, the matter will be deemed submitted, and we will attempt to get a decision as soon as possible.

[00:32:32] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much for the interesting argument.