and my understanding of the law is that we receive a review to novo when we appeal want a summary judgment motion and my client just feels he hasn't had his day in court and i think i agree with them i by it from him personally to the l l c the other issue so involved the value of of property and these are of course all matters of fact got evidence that the true value of the sign was something other than what was listed in the schedules i think the it's incumbent upon the court to make a finding i as to what the true value is rather than merely deciding that filed this has gone on for many years i think with schedules were originally filed in two thousand and fourteen and the schedules didn't specify what the obviously when you're dealing with the value of something the question is what's the value does it represent the purchase price does or represent the prices being carried on the books and obviously the as  as individuals and grooms were then dealing with what the actual value of the sign was at the time when it was it was basically liquidated and those potentially could be three separate values as a practical matter trial was but as a practical matter the bankruptcy court has to determine the value that what is the relevant time for for for a determining value i would argue that's where a trial comes in your honor these matters it's a matter of the value of the sign as a matter of fact and not something that's in my opinion properly decided at a trial and we basically my client i didn't have as his trial and i'm sure you're aware of the procedural history of the case the case was shut for originally set for o things were presented and the hearings were had but they were stretched out over a long period of time one of the things of having a trial is that it's a with had this in storage well that this is some claims on your client's part but it doesn't give them the right to summarily dispose of an asset of the state which is what they did which is why they're in trouble document was signed by one of your clients correct that's correct your honor i'm struggling to see that the great miscarriage of justice here you provided ok if we're no longer going to be allowed to do each signatures you know i can certainly have when i started out i was certainly familiar with the old way where we had people put pen to paper and signed the trial thank you thank you and we have no parents by the trust you know the today the five hundred and forty nine issue on the sign the answer to the mended complaint filed by the defendants in march of two thousand and eighteen admitted to ownership of the signed by the a state the testimony of defendant jan ingram at her deposition also confirmed that it's property of the estate and confirmed its value as set forth in the schedules the schedules listed as property of the estate and there was never any  attempt to amend the schedules to claim that it wasn't property of the estate there was an attempt to amend the schedules a few days before we filed the nd summary judgment motion to devalue the sign  no attempt to claim that it wasn't property of the estate only after the st hearing on the nd motion for summary judgment the defendant changed his claim and allege for the st time that he acquired ownership of the property and under our landlord's lien theory what the judge had done was give a continuance to the debtor and allow him time to provide objective facts as to the characteristics of the sign the shape of the sign the date of the inspection the size the color the material or even what would constitute scrap metal he didn't do that what he did is file the supplemental declaration that said it's my property on the basis of our landlord's lien any offered the conclusory statement that it's worthless he didn't do what the judge had requested which is provide some objective facts once you've destroyed this fine there's no way to test their  valuation that changes from the schedules there was never any attempt to amend the answer to allege the new ownership issue there was never an attempt to amend schedules to well no effect of a meant to change the schedules to factual but there is they need to present some evidence of why they would come up with a different value of what they previously swore to say oh i was mistaken in my valuation as a seven thousand dollars because the sign was you know six by four and it was made out of word or it was made out of cheap plastic something and the judge gave them the opportunity for the nd time to come up with  to what the characteristics of the sign were perhaps they could have created an issue of fact but all they offered are conclusory statements with no facts to back it up they simply concluded the sign was a joke it was