[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
that correct or not?

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
And you want to rely on circumstantial evidence to assume that there must have been.

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
And the question is, is that good enough?

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
Well, on the first piece of circumstantial evidence I'm referring to, it is not the

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
not fatal to your claim.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
It's not fatal because circumstantial evidence can provide evidence.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
Of what transfer?

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
That's why I keep coming back to I'm not sure that the circumstantial evidence even gets you to a prima facie case of a violation of the statute.

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
or vacate and get the asset back.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
But you got to have an asset to identify that in the court order and that's what's missing here.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
your honor that and this is where the district court I think in order to

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
to the various defendants.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
So an obligation incurred is also avoidable.

[00:04:18] Speaker 05:
I think in the record that Tony did take a salary from his consulting company at any point.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
No, that's one of the problems, Your Honor.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
What he did was he loaned money to the company and took it back as loans so that the money couldn't be levied upon as a wage.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
So like even before the judgment, just in the history of

[00:04:43] Speaker 05:
salary at any point.

[00:04:46] Speaker 05:
As far as we could discover, Your Honor.

[00:04:47] Speaker 05:
Nothing showing that he took a salary.

[00:04:51] Speaker 05:
Another question that is puzzling to me is why have your clients not tried to collect

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
speaking, it wouldn't work.

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
You know, the California law says that the fraudulent conveyance statutes should be liberally construed with a view toward affecting their purpose.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
And we think that looking to circumstantial evidence is consistent with that goal of the fraudulent transfer statutes.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
The law holds that

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
If you were to conclude that

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
you could draw from the evidence of reasonable inference that all this money went to Tony because Tony must have made transfers to the brothers and their entities.

[00:06:39] Speaker 05:
Well, that's why I was asking, but is there any history of him taking a salary from that consulting entity?

[00:06:45] Speaker 05:
Because if there was, and then something changed, then maybe you could have an inference of there's fraudulent activity.

[00:06:51] Speaker 05:
But if there's no evidence that his interaction

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
We could get bank records and general ledger records showing money is going back and forth.

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
But to my recollection, we couldn't get the tax returns you're asking about.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
But the bank records didn't show the – they must have shown transfers from his companies to other companies.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
They did.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
They did.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
The theory is that that must have been in the form of

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
credit cards that Tony was a signatory in his name or in his company's name, Pinnacle.

[00:09:06] Speaker 00:
So the money never went through Tony's account or Pinnacle's account.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
There's no way that you can garnish the credit card company so that you can trap those funds when they're paid to the credit card company.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
I don't know of any way.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
The credit card company will owe the money.

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
They don't care who they get the payment from.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
The payment came in.

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
They're not going to be very cooperative with you in trying

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
I say give it back because Tony didn't.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
those bills paid for by the brothers.

[00:10:33] Speaker 03:
Is that your theory?

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
for his consulting services.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
collection in California doesn't permit that.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
You just, it's a very long process.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
get the information and we were strung out.

[00:14:23] Speaker ?:
Your Honour, thank you.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
Actual fraudulent transfer, constructive fraudulent transfer, and conspiracy.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
The fraudulent transfer statutes are very clear as the District Court found.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
There must be a transfer from the debtor to a third party.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
That was the problem that the District Court had.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
It's what you indicate to Judge Tellman.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
It's of course the problem.

[00:15:42] Speaker 05:
do you dispute that if it was proven that money was earned by that company that Tony is the only participant of, so it wouldn't have to be at the benefit of his labor?

[00:16:11] Speaker 05:
that that was happening, that that would be an unlawful or fraudulent transfer from Tony, because he's basically saying to other people, I'm giving you my wages to do what I tell you to do with them.

[00:16:51] Speaker 05:
Send it to my credit card company.

[00:16:53] Speaker 05:
Send it to my landlord.

[00:16:54] Speaker 05:
Send it to my kid's school.

[00:16:57] Speaker 05:
Isn't that Tony transferring his money or telling somebody to spend his money for him?

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
But then the recipient of that transfer is the school.

[00:17:05] Speaker 04:
The recipient of that transfer is the credit card company.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
It is not the Navajo brothers who transfer the money to Tony.

[00:17:14] Speaker 05:
Well, I don't know if that's true because, again, we have to play this out sort of

[00:17:19] Speaker 05:
But there is a moment in time, if Tony says this, you know, you hold on to my money and pay it for me, there's a moment in time when his brothers are holding the money before they give it to the kids school and the credit card company and etc.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
payment to or for the benefit of is a payment by one of the Navarre brothers either to Tony which may be as a loan as they've claimed and then Tony uses that money for some other purpose but again the recipient of that transfer one has to show a transfer of something from the debtor to a third party a transfer to the debtor that was the issue obviously that the district court had that the court couldn't find any evidence of that

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
asset, the value

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
not it's recoverable is subject to whole

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
there's an absence of evidence that there was a transfer from Tony.

[00:20:40] Speaker 04:
There's speculation merely by reason of the fact that there are transactions among the family entities, but there is no evidence, there's no substantial evidence of it.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
He's doing some work for the brothers, not getting any income from it, unless he's doing it as a

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
were repaid within about 30 days, the records clear on that.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
Wait, there were loans to who?

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
To Tony.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
And he was repaid?

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
And my client, again, the Moussa Navar parties, and they were repaid within about 30 days.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
There were those three transactions.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
There was another transaction where there was, in fact, a $32,000 payment by my clients, the Moussa Navar parties, to Penteco for services rendered by Tony.

[00:21:52] Speaker 04:
It was actually paid to Tony for services rendered.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
Nothing was repaired.

[00:22:52] Speaker 05:
There's no proof that any of those transactions related to his consulting company were his assets.

[00:23:00] Speaker 05:
And here's the sentence that bothers me.

[00:23:02] Speaker 05:
The only way that transfers of funds to Tony could be tortious is if those funds actually originated with Tony and were shuffled around and ultimately returned to him as part of a scheme to hide his assets from the reach of creditors.

[00:23:15] Speaker 05:
It strikes me that that is incorrect.

[00:23:18] Speaker 05:
because it seems like the district court is trying to say that we would only have a fragile

[00:23:48] Speaker 05:
The transactions on paper don't look like they're paying for that, because that's not how the money is happening.

[00:23:54] Speaker 05:
It's being dispersed in other ways.

[00:23:56] Speaker 05:
But the way that the district court set that up, it seems to me, is sort of

[00:24:51] Speaker 05:
that basically Tony, neither Tony nor his company were ever entitled to payment for services.

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
fraudulently conveyed.

[00:27:01] Speaker 03:
make any sense under any reasonable – so something is happening to that income, right?

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
And why isn't it reasonable to say that it's going fraudulently through to these third parties?

[00:27:13] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I'd like to limit my answer to that question.

[00:27:15] Speaker 04:
Again, as to my client, we just didn't get that far.

[00:27:18] Speaker 04:
There were very limited transactions.

[00:27:23] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
My name is Bruce Ulchelt and I represent the, what we call Sean Amvar and his entities.

[00:27:48] Speaker 02:
I come to the court with a little different background.

[00:28:17] Speaker 02:
From Pentecost to Tony, he's got that order.

[00:29:05] Speaker 02:
Okay, he got lectured on that by the state court judge.

[00:29:13] Speaker 02:
A brother paying for his niece's bar mitzvah, his nephew's bar mitzvah, paying for private school is perfectly legal.

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
It's not evidence of fraudulent transfer.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
It's a loving uncle making sure that his nephew and nieces

[00:29:37] Speaker 05:
That's one way to read the facts.

[00:29:41] Speaker 05:
Another way to read the facts is in the questions that we're asking about like this is hiding income and trying not to pay for it so that it's easily collectible against.

[00:29:50] Speaker 05:
So why shouldn't that go forward and let a fact finder figure out if this is a loving uncle situation or something else?

[00:29:58] Speaker 02:
Because this evidence was presented to it to

[00:30:12] Speaker 02:
evidence that supports a fraudulent transfer.

[00:30:15] Speaker 02:
It doesn't comply with the statute.

[00:30:17] Speaker 02:
And Your Honor, before I leave the lectern here, I thought I was going to come here and convince you that the statute of limitations barred all of this.

[00:30:25] Speaker 02:
This complaint is time barred on its filing.

[00:30:29] Speaker 02:
It's time barred.

[00:30:30] Speaker 02:
For your statute of limitations for a Uniform Affordable Transfer Act, he pled in the second amended complaint the transactions that were now

[00:30:44] Speaker 02:
longer than four years before the filing.

[00:30:47] Speaker 02:
Then, in my papers, I urged the court to uphold the statute of limitations finding because the original judgment was 11 years old before he filed the second amended complaint.

[00:31:01] Speaker 02:
Plus, he

[00:31:23] Speaker 02:
He runs Penteco.

[00:31:25] Speaker 02:
That's all he does.

[00:31:26] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:31:27] Speaker 02:
And on behalf of Penteco, we provide services.

[00:31:30] Speaker 02:
Those services are paid for by the brothers.

[00:31:35] Speaker 02:
My recollection is the brothers pay Penteco for that money.

[00:31:40] Speaker 02:
Let me answer your question because something came up in one of your questions, Your Honor.

[00:32:24] Speaker 02:
know, Dan, I don't need to call him a person.

[00:32:26] Speaker 02:
Appellant's position is just based on speculation.

[00:32:31] Speaker 02:
There's got to be a presumption that this is, I apologize.

[00:32:34] Speaker 03:
Penteco receives income from the Brothers entities?

[00:32:37] Speaker 03:
Yes, the Brothers entities.

[00:32:40] Speaker 03:
And then Tony gets money from Penteco?

[00:32:42] Speaker 03:
Well, it's mostly their entities, but yes.

[00:32:43] Speaker 03:
And then Tony gets money from Penteco?

[00:32:46] Speaker 03:
Yes, and pays taxes and got a tax refund.

[00:32:49] Speaker 02:
So why are we, why is there no garnishing here?

[00:32:51] Speaker 02:
I don't understand.

[00:32:52] Speaker 02:
He's got the garnishment order and state

[00:33:17] Speaker 02:
in order to tell me how to turn over all his tax returns, turned over all his tax returns, didn't object to it.

[00:33:23] Speaker 02:
But Your Honor, I'm out of time.

[00:33:25] Speaker 02:
I just, this is a time bar to clean.

[00:33:57] Speaker 01:
whatever the term is.

[00:33:59] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'm out of time, but I have a complete answer for that.

[00:34:03] Speaker 02:
Okay, so here's the interesting story.

[00:34:11] Speaker 02:
Appellant filed a motion to renew the New York judgment.

[00:34:19] Speaker 02:
Tony

[00:34:42] Speaker 02:
agreement really was to buy out Dan Trevullian's interest.

[00:34:47] Speaker 02:
They went to hearing.

[00:34:49] Speaker 05:
I guess I'm not understanding how all of that history about the judgment relates to the statute of limitations here because under the UVTA the statute of limitations is triggered off of transfers and when the transfers happen and that can happen way after a judgment is entered because it can often take a long time to collect on a judgment.

[00:35:05] Speaker 05:
So why does all of the judgment history even matter?

[00:35:20] Speaker 02:
They went to hearing the New York trial judge ruled that the judgment had been paid off in full.

[00:36:52] Speaker 02:
and Mr. Altrodumier clients are burdened by that.

[00:36:55] Speaker 02:
This is the forensic guy?

[00:36:57] Speaker 02:
Yeah, Tregellis.

[00:36:58] Speaker 02:
Yeah, the forensic guy.

[00:36:59] Speaker 02:
And his, with due respect to Mr. Tregellis, it sounded more like a legal opinion than an expert opinion.

[00:37:05] Speaker 02:
But if he's got specific transactions, we're entitled to know what they are, not some glorified thing that all these transactions, and by the way, let's be clear, it's all inferential.

[00:37:18] Speaker 02:
Everything is inferential.

[00:37:33] Speaker 02:
Sorry for the high voice.

[00:38:08] Speaker 00:
that are unsupported by any defensible documentation that they were for business activities, that's a concealment of an asset that

[00:39:06] Speaker 03:
that Tony does get paid because the brothers pay Penteco who then pays Tony.

[00:39:53] Speaker 00:
To further answer your question, the theory that they make is that Tony rendered services for money that was owed to Penteco.

[00:40:02] Speaker 00:
But the problem is that Penteco got paid lots of money that then got paid out to Tony, and for most of it, there are no supporting invoices.

[00:41:26] Speaker 00:
of remedy does not mean that we're precluded from suing the defendants for a conspiracy to conceal us.

[00:41:33] Speaker 03:
It's more than that.

[00:41:34] Speaker 03:
The problem is the circumstantial evidence that I see in your case is the fact that he's doing work and not getting any income.

[00:41:40] Speaker 03:
But if he is getting paid income, that goes to your whole circumstantial evidence argument.

[00:41:45] Speaker 00:
Well, he's being repaid loans, that he says are loans that aren't income, and when we try to catch up by taking judgment debt or

[00:42:13] Speaker 00:
with no defensible battle.

[00:42:43] Speaker 05:
is submitted.