with respect to due process the central question before this court is whether the owners were entitled actual notice before their ownership interest in their cabins their rate recreational cabins on the pilgrims great property and their we are here today with the owner subject to an order by the bankruptcy court to jet them from the probably ask you question about your due process claim i'm having some difficulty figuring out why it matters in this sense your clients have now litigated the merits of their possession claims and lost they had an opportunity to move and we're here to review that review as you say those state law issues so what difference it make whether or not notice was appropriately given them in the bankruptcy proceedings they paid come in and made the claim that they have adverse possession the district the bankruptcy court dealt with it the district  and force an adversary judgment entered against blue screen senior nancy great the court now that motion on the basis that the owners could not be subject to that judgment injective from the property because then they were not parties to that ever super slow but eventually you got to bring in another happy go to litigate this quite correct you got to say to the bankruptcy judge whatever so happened up till now we have a great adverse possession claim and the bankruptcy judge said i didn't say no i'm sorry and you did try and you lost that actually what happened in the bankruptcy court your honor in response to the motion to force we filed a motion personally to rule sixty four alleging and demonstrating that the bankruptcy court when it entered the three sixty three sale order due to the lack of due process did not have personal jurisdiction over the owners as a result of that you know over the green under the green they wri that was property of the state the physical the the the real estate was property of the bankruptcy estate correct it was already late and you're claiming an interest in the property in the bankruptcy estate you're saying we had firstly possessed some of that property t belongs to us not to the estate and that's an interest you'd have to litigate out in bankruptcy court would you not i think either bankruptcy or court ordered steak for sure but you have to go to bankruptcy court first to get permission to go to state court because the properties the property the state the state court can't take it away from the bankruptcy estate was property if they for was sold and i think if it was hard my point is that sooner or later in this thing whether you got notice or didn't get notice you're going to have to go to the bankruptcy court and make your adverse possession claim and you did maybe later than you would have had you got notice but you did and the bankruptcy court didn't say i would hear your claim because i've already ruled the bankruptcy court said bring it on tell me what your evidence is and you presented your evidence and you lost so tell me tell me what it is what remedy that we give you because if you're due process claim other than the trial that you've already had i think there was no adversary proceeding it were no evidence for hearings there was no discovery there was no motion practice on this facet of mulches because what was the for the court was a rule sixty four motion and their motion to look for what additional evidence w adverse possession the less or do s he has to worry about that and that's a legal ruling if he's right you've had your day in court if he's not right will reverse and say go back and hold a factual hearing well i don't rule sixty b motion a party does not have any obligation to demonstrate they have in their tours defense and under the ninth circuit cases as we read them if there is a failure due process the result is a lack of personal personal jurisdiction and the order or the judgment is void as to that interest in the property and so little doubt what i tell you what happens now you when i say there's no due process here you would would you do having difficulty with it if we buy that that your argument that there was no jurisdiction doesn't really matter we know that you don't have a claim you litigated that i think potentially matters you're on it because that that issue itself was not fully and fairly l bankruptcy court it was argued by the parties to some extent in the briefing in the bankruptcy court because we were distinguishing why our plates the owners clients the greens claims had not been fully and fairly  you're so i mean i'm trips up as a practical matter if we agree with that legal conclusion what how have you been deprived to due process you've got an opportunity to make that legal argument to three different courts and each of if i can look at the underlying issues you've been asking for what do we get if we go back well put i think would be more helpful to me for you to address th do you think the alaska supreme court applies the restatement first of property i think it doesn't certain context here and if i read it in this context i don't believe so tell me why not ok the district court held on the appeal the catholic bishops of north america had a ownership interest during the time period it didn't have possession what it equated that to was a like a state in which they have no interest or right however the alaska supreme court nor the legislature of the state of alaska has ever held that restriction to apply in a landlord tenant situations have a help to the contrary it's never the parties i rarely last get decisions they generally follow the restatement in the absence of contrary legislation correct but ended this circumstances if you take a look at alaska predecessor or the owner must of been seized or possessed in the land shilts went on to in overturning the trial court decision who equated c s to possession as what it said is having record title she shields was seized of the land in this title sense of the term it is not necessary for the title holder to be in physical possession of land for any period of time in order to assert its rights which d trying to equate to is this is a ninety nine year lease if you assume that our client could assume no other rights then they would have with that ten year mark under the statute in a pleasurable rabbit that that's only if and as i read the first restatement it's pretty clear that you can't establish adverse possession against the hooper property while the property is leased to someone and so there's no doubt here the property was leased to surrender so if that's the rule and maybe the alaska supreme court wouldn't adopt that rule but if that's the rule context what you see is an expansion of the findings that will allow an adverse possessor to gain titles even beyond with the  stated was that mr schneider senior built a house on another person's property in return for living in that house he would provide the owner with meats and game sensibly food all of the district court in that case does not equate that to a lease it in fact an address that the screen court interpreted that as a lease situation the court went on to say when it expanded how to look at assertion of their own claim of ownership or through a long and ambiguous occupation of the property then the initial permissive possession became hostile in that situation the lessee just  plain rent providing the land was sold but the court is extending the ability of an adverse possessor even in the context of the lease situation if you accept that you could if you could if you could attend an adverse possession against a lease you get not enough for you in this case because which was terminated by the bankruptcy court correct well under the terms of the lease there would have been sixteen swells maybe some against the lease it doesn't do you any good they would have a property interest in that lease that property interest would have a value owner of the property was paid a one point eight million i believe for the property as a whole when that it was terminated however our clients even if they had only assumed title in possession to their property under the terms of the lessee they would have still had a property interest that would have required actual notice they weren't given an opportunity to defend that interest to raise an objection at that time to address those issues there was no i have been very action filed against our clients we're dealing with the case where the court is unfortunate order against on parties well we're still that and i'm still not clear that they are that that the alaska supreme court would not follow the i mean the case you're looking at every doesn't seem to confirm that clover of eagle over there is not a case that confirms that your honor that i'm aware of and there's not a case that supports it that it hasn't been addressed specifically on point case in the adversary action by service of notion of notice and a motion and a proposed order pursuant to bankruptcy rule seven thousand and four and to the notice itself is in the record it's in the bankruptcy of adversary proceeding docket number forty and i just want to point out that the motion asserts that in to inform the recipients that the an object was asserting that the state law statutory period for adverse possession did not commence until against the debtor until the bankruptcy court terminated the lease the pilgrim springs limited on december fifth two thousand and eight so any question as to these folks not getting of proceeding here let's make this part of the previous adversary proceeding and litigate down exactly and give them notice and give them something let me ask you as a bankruptcy matter let's assume that for some reason a creditor overlooked and the estate doesn't get notice and a judgment comes down that judge it's not binding on the creditor correct correct if they if they should have been known  correct correct what then happens the remedy in the in the sale cases that the parties have discussed in the briefing varies but it's flexible in the metzger case the county had a record develop an agreement it wasn't it didn't receive notice of the the sale motion and there was a pending state court action in that case and the county was then allowed by the bankruptcy court to proceed w assertion of the agreement in the state court action without prejudice from the bankruptcy case kinect i guess my question is is that what happened here in effect did the bankruptcy court in effect say i thought you know i don't think you are entitled to notice but even if you were even even if we are there let's hear your claim it was litigated and if it's good we'll deal with it but if it's not good i will reject it that's certainly the position of not tuck and and and when we had had the property for a couple of years and when these people didn't leave when they were asked to leave we filed this pleading in the bankruptcy court to co notice the whole intent was to get them into court to litigate these claims because the the stacy and mary and louis jr were not affirmatively asserting these cases in claims in state court we already had rulings in the bankruptcy court with regard to louis sr and mary excuse me and nancy and so we thought the most efficient way to deal with this is to go to the bankruptcy court give everybody notice bring them in allow them to address these issues and if we're right then they have no claim if we're wrong then the legal part of the property correct me ask you about the third restatement which seems to have  rule here what's how does that affect this case the third restatement of yes i don't know that i'm without my brief and frankly i don't know that i can address that what is needed neither did the district court but to the third restatement says well usually you don't have to make a claim with there's we split i'm some occasions you might have to do you might be able to take a diverse position and i guess i don't know what the alaska supreme court would do with that do you have any sense well my sense is that now that that was the revised statute that was revised in two thousand and three but it does doesn't apply in this case doesn't know it does not apply to this case but my approach to to to that your honor is that it puts the landlord the property owner in the position of bringing an action against both its tenant and the adver so that complicates and creates more litigation than just the application of common law rule which is to toll the running of the period until the tenancy is terminated so while i agree that the three statement the younger greens that the appellant's perfected their claim started their claim and then their father again became the agent for the tenant and the affidavit of stacy green says well i asked my dad if i should tell p s l and he said no so it creates a situation where if the owner is relying on that lessee to protect the interest and the lessees agent knows i'm an adverse claim and doesn't relate it to that tenet the the the owner is prejudiced by that so people get the bankruptcy court think in this case found also that the element of hostility couldn't be established because because because obviously i'd given permission to to the senior greens to be in a property move my difficulty with that was members maybe an aunt or but it's pretty apparent that our best case is to say well they were a family they came to the property as a family louis jr and stacy were at the question of so why these people if there was if there was a failure to give actual or constructive notice to the greens in two thousand and ten that was remedied in two thousand and thirteen by by the notice of process that that we went through to bring them into the action and to give them their day in court which they had full opportunity it was more than just a sixty b motion it was an adversary proceeding to court they did file affidavits had they sought to have the issue not been so clean i guess they they could have done discovery in this case we were not concerned about limiting them with anything we just wanted to get them into a court so we could resolve these issues the remedy for a breach of court the order from the bankruptcy court said you know you guys get together and figure out a reasonable way to to to vacate the property and if you need me let me know and i'll do something differently but then the case was appealed to the district court and during that time another tuck has asked that it be notified by the greens when they go out there of the not talk has requested the greens fill out an access permit card just so they can maintain control over who is out there who's not but you haven't sought to enforce the bankruptcy court or you know your own have you know they've got everything is still there and everything is still there there has been no harm to them like some of the sales or cases where the property gets sold the courts stuck with dealing with well what do i do now it's kind of difficult to reverse a transaction or or give money back but in this case the  was formed technically to not talk was formed two months before the asset purchase auction so it did not know but i'm not going to tell the court that people hadn't been there and seen evidence but i think the point that you're making is that in we don't need to do anything here that even if they were to be successful you have you own the property and they would have an adverse date have a claim to part of the property well we haven't addressed the question of whether portion of the property by their adverse possession certainly that's correct did you have another point you wanted to make i actually don't your owners i think i mean my  and it found what it thought was a procedurally appropriate due process appropriate way to give these people notice to bring them in and and and to allow everybody to have their day in court and that's what we've done thank you you thank  demonstrate a lack of personal jurisdiction as a result of the failure due process and in a lowly the court held a motion procedure cannot be used as a substitute for a properly initiated initiated adversity adversarial proceeding which is done by someone to complain we refer the court to that in that file just one quick question the answer about the restatement and why that doesn't help us in this case is the left has a statute that is squarely on point the adverse possession statute stated that any person who has his caesar