kevin fong pillsbury went shopping and then representing appellants lo enterprises and he can they please the court the key issue on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court had  authority to grant the relief given its february two thousand and three order that order relieved lowe enterprises from the consequences of being three days late and accepting the assignment right i mean i'm not it was failure to meet a deadline for notification under the settlement agreement correct and now i'm actually the one thing you said something else altogether you said that's moving that line around but in a normal options case where you have that rule of strict construction total there's no risk of there's no risk of for for terror in a normal options case this was not a normal that now you know what you get nothing but just nothing at all nothing happens you know you try to do it the stock is just shot up you try to go and say i want my options and t are up and to take that analogy here you had not only do you lose the option because it's expired but also you have to hand over three pieces of property that you already own let me ask you this at the and have the deed been conveyed i believe so but i'll have to check the record on that but everybody agrees that we were the owner at that point what you're trying to do is bring yourself within the scope of that a law where the homeowner who's got a mortgage who's paying off the bank misses a deadline by a few days and then the nevada law says you know that's a forfeiture and we'll try very hard to avoid that this does not seem to me that kind of a forfeiture th much more like an ordinary option contract but in again in an ordinary option contract the end result would not be a turnover of pieces of property where you held title to but of course neither one neither your client know the other side is going to end up owning this property i mean this property is going to park ultimately that was the intent of everyone that it would become a part so it's all really not talking about us whether you or the other side owns the property because the if you look at this way now both sides were seeking equitable remedies in the sense because usa commercial was seeking specific performance and they wanted an order negotiating table you could have me thirty three and twenty seven right absolutely then i did but we also put in and the parties agreed to the provision that nevada law would apply so it really does you really the line should be at twenty eight not not at twenty nine and under that scenario they had no property lose were the ones who helped title to the property during the whole time so while it's interesting that's trying to spin out scenarios it's hard to think of a here it's just such a sad this is not a case where where you pay the mortgage a little bit late i mean it just shows that the whole idea of forfeiture it's just has no uplink ability here i don't see much difference w here but also in this case the parties negotiated not only the thirty day notification deadline but they also negotiated the applicability of nevada state law under the choice the choice of i think the case really does turn on whether you characterize this as an option or are not the cases in nevada which have strictly construed options are ones where there was no risk of anybody losing any property other th the potential rights under the contract that was being option here you sort of it's sort of a hybrid in this case let me interject there is no risk of your client losing this property that is to say your client never would have held on to this property because this property taking the optional usa taking the option so you reno has a binding contract that these properties will become parks belong to the city reno which they may or may not have have it have been forced so the property worth something apart from the parks agreement property is property it's always worth has some value to the parties in this case i think it has seven hundred fifty thousand dollars worth of value or maybe more maybe less and it has some value apart from the parks agreement so it depends on whether you view this as an entire paragraph and integrate a provision sixteen which encompasses both the wind and the park screen or if you're trying to split it up into two portions i mean one possible result is that maybe there is one result for the parks agreement and a different result for the land here usa commercial ones both they wanted an order from the bankruptcy court directing the handover of both the on this property was contemplate section six of the settlement agreement was written to to contemplate that and what really happened is that love took the property subject to its agreement to transfer that property to usa in the advance that that it did not exercise its option within that thirty day period lo i own loz theory that this was a forfeiture because love took this property subject to its agreement to give this property that i think that our brief adequately discusses that it would end up in the hands of the city of reno for payment and really that's what's being forfeited here not just the mere title to the property for the interim time between the  whichever way you look at it but it's still a forfeiture nonetheless which is something that's not characteristic of an auction you're on