an issue that i don't believe was sufficiently dealt with at the courts below the landlord it was conceded by fact and ultimately resolved to be noticed a settlement was holding  transaction and the back seat it was a perfectly normal lease transaction with that being in advance deposit at the commencement case is going to order to determine what assets are available for distribution to creditors and i perceive that being an over someone wealthy enough to own a home the simple but does not allow homestead exemption is not some court of last around i think that doesn't sound like what the oregon legislature lifea intended well that's what's not resolved your honor and that's where i guess indicated that because  the legislature focused on the ownership he seems to be referring to something that would be greater than a leasehold interest well can one one of these hold that's true give one stretches the definition of ownership within the terms of the statute with and also the residence being occupied by himself it was not being occupied by himself at that time but if the homestead statute does allow it to be occupied by others depending on the  i don't even know if there was an ultimate divorce i don't believe there's a dual explains in effect came about i think we're only talking about his claim of exemption and the money being held by the landlord and whether or not that the properly be characterize completely undermine any protection for the holes that exemption is designed to provide for i don't believe the rest based on personal experience because this is the first case of this nature i've seen in twenty two years of being a think generally it's just a matter of advance planning to make sure that you will handle the financial aid for health payments rent payments or such other financial obligations as you need it it's not exempt recognized he needs to be this deal with just i think there is an ex it can be applied unless the one the legislature gave under what was then no risk to three points was different zero zero one and at that time which was the four over exemption which allows each debtor four hundred dollars in cash for lot of the exchange affordability to refurbish your financial affairs but there are some downsides to doing that because any debtor who has funds which are beyond exemption must turn o sleep under a roof or in your car or out of a public park well but that's where my concern is where we carry it to absurd results where you know part becomes a homestead organ any number of things i think we have to focus on and if oregon coming through bankruptcy is only a lot of four hundred dollars cash exemption so when they turn around and their landlord then requires that their first or last month and security deposit be replenish and from their landlord lets him in or a real pressure situation where they will find some source of the revenue and borrow it to to give it to the trustee rather than have the trustee contact their landlord with the cumulation basically a safety net for trustee in bankruptcy so that you won't get stuck with an unprofitable leases and that has a there sixty day automatic rejection provision in it so that if he has anybody turn over the twelve wells well after a year after the lease was rejected question of rejection the and the legal impact of what this brings the best when i do want to let mention here there is i think there's an incorrect analysis that's been perpetuated by the bankruptcy of hell a panel which i think is not correctly applying in rate white in property that carries with it the right of possession there's no other case that holds that the cases that have analyzed echo back some of the deal with fraudulent to transfer issues that have always found that there is an actual estate higher than that of leasehold  permit the debtor to occupy the lease whole i think i think in effect there was i think that usually as a result there's nothing that compels me to abandon i normally would not assume any kind of lease of this nature unless there was some financial benefit what gives you the right to then come back and claim the twelve hundred on the basis of the claim is aion else was the fact that the landlord holding those funds i allege was not entitle to hold those funds and as a custodian under section five four three of the bankruptcy code holding the nerd ranch was obligated to turn those vaca over and that was resolved by virtue of the settlement with the landlord agreed to do this and acknowledged he had no other you need to turn it back over to me and i'm saying it doesn't fit within the definition of the homestead statute to offer that it doesn't qualify for this other statute which you've already exhausted tha