e and they object to specifically the twelve month limitation upon their ability to foreclose judge cristol finds a plan b for an equitable and orders confirmation september twenty one two thousand and fifteen confirmation order is filed a motion for relief from stay in which they specifically recognized that they had a problem with the twelve month issue and the judge gave them a call or comfort order stay relief as they already had st plan but shall retain whatever interim rights it has against the property the plan further provided if the claim in this class does not complete its pending foreclosure proceedings on or before the st day of the twelve month act the effect date its claim shall be deemed satisfied and its liens shall be extinguished and satisfied of record by order of the bankruptcy or in recordable form to be filed the public records of miami dade county document may seek an extension of the toll month limit here and for good cause shown before the expiration they define that in the motion as the foreclosure deadline provisions next paragraph though your bank joins in the us trustees motion to dismiss dismiss and further requests that in the event the motion to dismiss is granted an order is entered dismissing this chapter eleven case without  discharge that the order also include a provision vacating the terms of the confirmation order with regard to the treatment of torture by his class seven claim including the foreclosure deadline provision and confirming that upon dismissal of the chapter eleven case the foreclosure deadline provision null and void dortch asserts that such relief is appropriate since the plan provided for no payment to deutsche bank by the debtor and the foreclosure deadline provision constitutes a material impairment of its state law remedies that should not remain the fact that the debtors chapel a case is dismissed he morning your honor may it please the court time jeffrey robin i represent the police do it bank deutsche bank had the ability to complete its foreclosure without time restriction this is because the pla provision governing the default of the underlying obligations of miss bank of each provided no time restriction for deutsche bank to proceed with its foreclosure and had to conclude its foreclosure excuse me i'm sorry  hear you needed to conclude the foreclosure proceedings the exact language was as follows your honor if the bankruptcy court determines that there are material defaults under the plan the case  shall be converted to a case under chapter seven upon conversion to a chapter seven any unpaid creditors including class seven shall have full and complete relief from the automatic stay of eleven u consummate the plan obligations when she filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to convert her case there was a stated mission that was in may th two thousand and sixteen the plan effective date was and was several months earlier nov two thousand and fifteen so ostensibly if you're going to enforce the one your limitation deutsche bank would have had to complete its foreclosure by november th two thousand and sixteen but because the default provision was triggered that twelve month time limitation was no longer enforced that's only if the default provision was triggered with respect to the entire plan if i mean if the plan is divisible it seems like ms bank of itch did all of the things she was required to do with respect to deutsche bank before she defaulted why is that not sell well she did it because her obligations were none she didn't have she didn't have any obligations as to do it for bank she didn't substantially consummate the entire plan as a whole new can't just pick and choose which parts of a contract you want to perform under and then decide to gain the benefits of them as you can actually it depends on if the if it's divisible or not if it's you know if if you can segregate out parts of the contract and the question is whether she performed everything as a relates to do it should bank and my recollection of the record is that obligation to conclude the proceedings before the end of the year and if you weren't able to do so all you needed to do was go into court and seek an extension that's right your honor and why didn't you all seek an extension because at the hearing on the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding judge cristol deleted the twelve month time limitation he had deleted and he had retained jurisdiction to do so he retain jurisdiction to enforce his own prior order in fact the plan afforded broad jurisdiction reservation to make such orders as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of the plan to correct any defect here any omission or reconcile any inconsistency in the plan or confirmation order as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of the plan and to determine  resolved defaults under the plan your own or miss bank of it didn't have any obligations to do each bank all deutsche bank had was its right to foreclose its secured lien and that twelve month time limitation also bank could have gone into the bankruptcy court and asked for a good cause extension but by virtue of the default provision triggering because of her underlying breach and failure to substantially consummate her plan made no payments to do which bank default provision was triggered the us the twelve month limitation was eliminated and to end judge cristol announced on the record in the bankruptcy court that he deleted the provision mainly because miss baker can't reap the benefits of a bankruptcy reorganization plan while concurrently  jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own prior orders and the bankruptcy court retained that jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own prior orders and so it had the jurisdiction to modify the chapter eleven bankruptcy plan provision requiring a your honor there is i believe judge cristol announced at that hearing that he would be deleting that time period what was the date of that har so in addition your honor  not only did that state court enter a final judgment which was effectively one year in five months from the date of the original confirmation of the plan you're talking about a five month period  there being no prejudice to major miss bank of h for that additional five month delay particularly where she contested the foreclosure and asked for the st day of the foreclosure so that she could let nothing stop you from asking for more time i mean nothing stopped you from asking the bankruptcy court for more time to complete the foreclosure rate and respectfully i was not counsel in the bank i don't mean you personally and i'm i'm just saying you  make right they could have but i think it doesn't matter in this instance because of the default because at that the default provision to me seems not to make any sense the way that you want to read it because  because what it says is that if if she's if the plants not confirmed then the automatic stay will be lifted but the automatic state already been lifted to you so it can't be lifted again i mean the sta had already been lifted to two and when i say you i mean to which a bank i don't mean you personally and you had already had the opportunity to go ahead and begin foreclosure proceedings there was nothing that she was doing that was preventing you from doing so and so she had upheld her entire end of the bargain as it relates to georgia bank is there anything that you can identify that she did not do as it relates to deutsche bank as of the time that the cop as of the time that she conceded that she wasn't going to be able to comply with the plan no because there were no obligations of us bank of it i mean all we had was our right to foreclose and protect  and the automatic stay i believe well there was an order granting stay relief in the bankruptcy case but i'm not sight but you meaning to watch a bank nothing the automatic stay was not in place with respect to do it your bank as it relates to foreclosure before the confirmation plan fell through isn't that right i don't know i think that is right i think she right we didn't have stay relief and  you did have to stay really if that's how you were able to that's what how you were able to go ahead and see foreclosure now because the foreclosure was filed well before the bankruptcy foreclosure was filed in two thousand and thirteen the state for closure began well before the bankruptcy rate but what i mean is that's how you were able to pursue it under the plan is there was no automatic stay in place you would have been able to pursue it if there had been an automatic stand place right right ok so you would agree with me that before she breached the plan that there was no automatic stay as it pertained to do and shipping i don't know about the judge because i think that there was an order the judge cristol entered granting stay relief host confirmation ok so just to make sure i'm understanding  bank's position it's deutsche bank's position that they could not act under the the plan before judge cristol entered the order after she defaulted on her confirmed plan i don't think the plan speaks to that i'm looking at the plan here i mean put but really i mean i i i cannot imagine that the automatic stay was in place with respect to deutsche bank that makes no sense how in the world could you proceed with a foreclosure proceeding if the automatic stay were in place right you couldn't write it when you said a whole point of the confirmed plan was to allow you at least as it pertains to deutsche bank was to allow you to proceed with the foreclosure proceeding which you couldn't do if the automatic stay were in place so the automatic state could not have been in place from the time that the plan was signed off on and but i don't see well the plan would be meaningless as it pertains to door should bank if you couldn't pursue foreclosure right right ok and you had a year to do it from the time they signed off on the plan so that means the automatic stay could not have been in place or else you couldn't have pursued for a closure right right ok so the point is then the default provision did not had no function as it related to doit's a bank because you already had received relief from the automatic stay that's if you're deciding to carve out one obligation under the plan and and ignore the fact that she admitted she defaulted under the plan as to other creditors so if you're taking that if you're deciding to do that then you would have to enforce part of a defaulted plan and against one creditor to the detriment of another so but i guess my question is why why shouldn't it be divisible when there's nothing that she didn't so we did so in an in a manner consistent which which we thought was the default provision which didn't require us to go back to the bankruptcy court and ask for more time but then the bankruptcy court gave us that time anyway i'm not saying this is my view necessarily but could you argue that the confirmation plan offered you partial relief from the automatic stay and then the default provision offered total relief i think so i think that certainly  on exactly the factual pattern that we have here you've also argued that even if we even if we were to disagree with you on the relative meaning of the plans and the application that there are there's already been entered the properties already been judicially sold there was a there were defenses raised by miss bank of it in the foreclosure relating to time limitation the statute of limitations claims against deutsche bank all those had to be adjudicated it was heavily contested that's not just rockefeller right i mean i was certainly one argument but isn't wasn't the other argument that because she didn't provide the supersedeas bond the right there  stay and so as often happens in bankruptcy proceedings once the property is sold it's sold that's right in the district court noted that gave her and she could have posted a bond to stay the foreclosure sale  she didn't do that and additionally the court then she went and asked for an additional reduced bond to two to stay the sale and the court denied that so she was denied her request for an additional stay based on her failure to post the original bond which i believe was the total judgment amount the total state court judgment amount i think i've exceeded my time your hon counsel why wouldn't the court have equity jurisdiction to do what it did here law versus legal your supreme court equity cannot change that the result of the statu are against the debtors i'm reading from the march for hearing he's a miscreant made for hearing barber chair failure to consummate the plan is appropriate to delete any time limit on the completion of a foreclosure he said  will grant the motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding debtor is not entitled to the benefits that come from being in the bankruptcy court without being responsible burdened there's no dispute she didn't consummate client and therefore the concept that they cannot eliminate the substantial margin mortgage as a result of the earlier proceedings would be totally inequitable and he goes on and on then you follow a motion for reconsideration of that order he has another hearing and he says there's evidence and city misrepresentation in the plan never was implemented yeah i see if the plan ultimately became the final plan and then you're doing fraud to set aside the plan but that's not what happened here that was a conversion of respect we disagree on or the plan was confirmed specifies what happens on conversion there's no no mention in there of affecting a final non appealable order that was entered during the chapter eleven so we have a final not appealable order with which the debtor complied as to this credit or she didn't comply with the whole plan and that's another issue that is visible i don't know what i think about that but let's assume it's not divisible she didn't comply ok can the bankruptcy do it  modified the plan in in the final resolution of the adversary proceeding which is still within the bankruptcy court no remedy at all does the bankruptcy court have any power to do anything in that situation i i'm afraid i can't address a hypothetical that broadly what we have an answer is got to be yes there's something right up the statute doesn't say so and the rules don't say is nothing in the statute to undo a final non appealable order that was entered in chapter eleven case you counsel at the may the hearing that we're talking about i was counsel and if the adversary sitting but i did not do the motion for expired i did raise that argument before the circuit court ok in the circuit court the st that's not in the record but the transcript the circuit court the circuit judge said i'm not going to do that here but if the bankruptcy court does that that's a different thing the bankruptcy court didn't do it either and that's why we're here we're appealing that forced that the bankruptcy court declined to a full in force as basic we have here and the facts and circumstances of the case given her whether right or wrong material requires that the court find as to each class of creditors that they have either accepted the plan or that it is fair and equitable as to each class so the code splits up the classes and to take the contract analysis if there's four parties who are there a contract and only one party doesn't receive what they were supposed to in the contract how does a party that received what they were supposed to complain for the party who didn't and that's what we have here deutsche bank got everything they were entitled to under the plan and then they chose for whatever reason not to seek an extension and i don't think it's because they thought well we don't need to do something somebody dropped the ball now they're trying to figure out a cover so we have a clear unambiguous order that  acknowledge three times on the record in the transcript and to file pleadings where they say we know about this deadline it's coming up i have to address the three the state relief issue the code provides that upon confirmation they have through sixty two c and it says as soon as property is no longer property the state there's no automatic stay on confirmation the property vested in the debtor therefore no estate therefore no come no automatic stay so we do a plan of organization we we do it against the code the rules the facts the ballots and three hundred and sixty two says on confirmation and it says upon when properties on our property state there's no automatic stay on confirmation property vested in mrs bank which no state therefore no automatic stay so the order they obtained after confirmation was totally a comforter it says in the motion that i agreed to it of course argue to it why would i waste my time going down and arguing against something they already had comforter and so they had the full time and they knew that this deadline approached they received everything they were entitled to other classes also did by the way it sounds like everybody got stiffed here there were a couple classes that yeah but one hundred and twenty of that was to the f d i c and well less you know they're credited to oh sure but they're discharged let me ask you this i tried to think of another way to look at this because i like bankruptcy actually and i think it's very interesting went if you're right and they looked at they lost they didn't foreclose ok so the property but have to go to the estate is that correct if you're saying they lost their right and the property went to the estate the trustee then had the property and then he abandoned it ok so that's your theory of this case is extinguished settling because you have to all of the property that you're trying to get that you're trying to get that right from whom are you trying to trying to get it back from dodge by but also trying to get the bankruptcy court to get it that way if the one year provision is no longer valid and they didn't have a right to foreclose right so what helped me where the property when it went to the trustee in this state right it went from and from the estate in the chapter eleven to mrs bank of  the bankruptcy trustee and then back to mrs bank average ok because the trustee then abandoned the property rights why would the bankruptcy court then have equitable jurisdiction to say under all the circumstances here where the trustee abandoned that on the basis that whatever if you do your theory which the no the bankruptcy court disagreed with why couldn't you say it's an equitable for you wouldn't get it i don't know who would get it but you wouldn't get it the bankruptcy of it most it would go back to the estate i disagree that's not the remedy that would be appropriate that the estate has no interest in this property and the estate of you said that the state had an interest in the or is it just a general statement the trustee abandoned all property well if the trustee knew he still had in the estate this home he wouldn't abandon it what ever i would agree to that i can't speculate i know the trustee knew that this property was in there property is already sold because there's no time the remedies that can be fashioned i mean the the proceeds they're not entitled to the proceeds if they foreclose the mortgage that didn't exist so proceeds should go to the debtor and depending on depending on who it is in title and whether they had notice it maybe it's not the st time in a foreclosure sales been set aside or foreclosure judgment set aside after sale so it's not a unique remedy but there's remedies it can be fashion i think there are rejected ricker feldman which i would agree