it please the court i'd like to reserve three minutes for a bottom line i'm asking that this court reversed the decisions below and remand this case with instructions to deny the motion to remit the focus of the decisions below has been whether gulf sheiks legal code claims gave rise to a prepaid titian property interest of the debtors but there are two other jurisdictional issues that dispose of this case first on may nineteenth two thousand and ten the underhill debts were discharged they were wiped away under eleven u s c five twenty four this discharge prevents any quote act to collect recover offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor and court huntington's claims as well as the claims of the other creditors have been discharged so to collect or recover even  about reopening the bankruptcy is a ministerial act and it's a necessary first step huntington in its motion to reopen recognizes this in the last sentence of the motion to reopen is as follows huntington has notified the united states recover fraudulent transfer of the do a number of things and they couldn't do anything with things that have been discharged wouldn't that have their daughters and other creditors the windfall and and penalize creditors twenty seven allows a one year period for that discharge to be revoked so there is some finality to to the dis to the to the bankruptcy case in seven twenty seven he says that one year after that either the requesting party did not know of such brought until after the granting of such discharge or to the debtor acquired property that is property of the estate or became entitle to acquire property that would be property of the state and knowingly and progeny fail to report the acquisition of or entitlement such property or to live or surrender such property to be a state that is that that's too in deed to state that it's a one year period from the latter of the date of granting of the discharge or the date the bankruptcy is closed so even in a case where there is a partial discharge the bankruptcy would not be closed and it would be a one year period from the latter date of closing of the bankruptcy second ohio law states that a membership interest in an l l c does not confer upon the member any specific interest in the company property such laws instead held in own soley by the company and that's from the northern or two thousand and twelve bankruptcy lexis twenty two forty four and it's quoting seventeen o five point three four ohio revised code and ohio revised code seventeen zero five point seventeen states that a membership interest in an l l c is personal property of that member so here are the under hills of the debtors and they listed golf chic their membership interest in golf chic in their bankruptcy schedules so even if elsie the bankruptcy code under section five forty one says that any interest any interest in any property anywhere where ever located property their interest in golf chic was property that they should have listed in the jurisdiction of the development of the jurisdiction the bankruptcy and so any interest in any potential litigation any legal action any of that would also be property of that estate would it not it would be it would be part of their membership interest if they owned it and i know this is on the far end of the hypothetical range but if they own stock in p and g they wouldn't have to separately list legal and they would only have to list those at a had an action for some reason against p and g that might potentially result in some kind of recovery with that list that they would if they individually had had that action they would have to separately listed in addition to any any ownership of the company the the courts below conflated the other hills in their company which runs contrary to this seventeen zero five point three four higher price code so finally i'd like to turn has a temporal analysis it says as of the commencement of the case and so here we look at january sixth two thousand and ten which is the date the under hills the debtors filed for bankruptcy protection and as of that  they didn't have any property interest in any claim tyler a recent decision by this court i thought they had ok so not probably twenty fifth two thousand and ten she could sue the ladies pro  conduct to analyze that we have to look at the underlying substantive law and hear ohio tortious interference has five points five elements i'm sorry the first element is the existence of a contract of a contract here chic boutique was formed in two thousand and six and had a business relationship with its supplier that went back to two thousand and seven and so that satisfies the first element the second element is the wrongdoers knowledge of that contract and the evidence and testimony below show that lady's pro shop in the florida defendants knew of golf she can knew of its relationship with jamie sedaka in two thousand and nine which was pretension so those are two of the five elements the third element is the wrongdoers intentional procurement of the contracts breach and that didn't happen until september thirtieth two thousand and ten that's ten months after the bankruptcy almost ten months after the bankruptcy protection was filed the fourth element is lack of not not lack of justification in the fifth element is resulting damages so those three elements didn't didn't occur in till september thirtieth two here there was no violation when you look at it when you look at the three what happened pre bankruptcy it was sorry and were you looking for that you also talk i believe about have an obligation to separately list their membership in the company and the legal claim with which was an asset of the company they weren't they weren't parties the legal claim they didn't the legal claim was asserted by coffee cup boutique so when they as when they listed there and scheduled their interest in golf she could see kelsey and the trustee did not the trustee did not dispose of that asset and under section five  five five forty four the case was closed and it wasn't disposed of that was abandoned and even if the valuation of the company was wrong they said it was worth zero dollars if that was wrong it can't later be on abandoned so that goes along with their whether they had an obligation to separately schedule the lawsuit as an asset and i submit they did so in two thousand and nine call she existed they had a contract with cheney saying it was the existence of the florida defendant the florida defendants learned about gulf she can look at their web site and pricing information and they formed an animus when you look at the documentation the florida defendants didn't even start making complaints to the supplier intil the first documented complaint we have is january twelfth which is after the petition was filed but even that those complaints don't give rise to a violation the violation is that fresh start is not something that is automatically given to debtors in bankruptcy a fresh start in the discharge presumes that a debtor has come to the court and fully disclosed all of its assets and property and all of its legal and equitable interests under section five point one that is not something that happened here the debtors here did not disclose that they had a legal claim and interest against the florida defendants against ladies pro against andrea walsh and others they did not disclose that and in fact the testimony their own testimony in the hamilton county action reflected that they knew that the claim existed they knew that  had disparaged them in two thousand and nine and had contacted jamie sadeq at that time those events gave rise to the claim and more specifically referenced in the complaint there was no terminations of the contract that was she outlined in the hamilton county action that there were other events that occurred in two thousand and nine including an e mail that was sent to jamie sac and in fact indicated that the ladies pro shop  wanted to stop doing business with because golf she was undercutting the prices she was selling merchandise cheaper than ladies pro shop was so it is wrong to assume council would honor i don't believe that the testimony is consistent with that proposition i think that the evidence again from the debtors own lips and also from the testimony the deposition testimony of andrea want the owner of ladies pro  was that that action that activity actually started in two thousand and nine but tells us and so i hope you will respond that's pretty positi basis for the claim and the mere fact that the event straddles the petition date the bankruptcy partition date doesn't mean that the property is not property that the claims are not property of the bankruptcy estate i think that that is very clear from vs rochelle that the events can straddle of the firing i think originally when this case began there was a the argument of the theory that was advanced by the under hills was that they didn't know about the claim when the bankruptcy petition was filed and in fact i think that the testimony reflected that they did that there deposition testimony inflected that that was not the case  between twenty four seven and so reopening the bankruptcy case to administer an asset merely permits the asset to be brought into the bankruptcy estate for the trustee to collect it to huntington has not asked that the discharge be revoked that is something that would have to have been done by a separate adversary proceeding filed in the in the bankruptcy case if that was to occur the important part about the asset your honor arguing that they would be an equitable pool or at this point the under deals to to keep the settlement point is that they did not schedule this asset therefore it was not administered by the trustee it was not abandoned it was not made free of huntington's claims to it it passed through the bankruptcy unaffected because it was not disclosed and it was not administer i think i've been a bankruptcy practitioner for more than twenty years and i've never heard anyone argue that and that an asset that is not scheduled can be abandoned like that i've never c in a limited liability company that by agreeing that ownership interest becomes the property of the estate and the trustee steps into the debtor shoes and has to administer any property that belongs to the l l c and he claims that belong to the l l c that should have happened here and chapter seven trustee in this case would never disclose to him that this claim existed and he is not in the record and it's not before th  court but certainly if it had been disclosed to him he would have pursued it he would have been able to reduce it to money for the benefit of the creditors and to distribute to the creditors but he would also have had to have paid bar going seeking reopening rather than beyond the one year deadline would have existed for the choice of reopening rather than opposing the discharge or asking to  bar and that is something that huntington did was requested that the case be reopened to administer the fact that the bank is not seeking and has not to pursue the underhill personally for collection of the god that it's merely sought to reopen the bankruptcy case to bring the proceeds from the settlement into the bankruptcy state so that they can be distributed to the creditors secured creditors and unsecured creditors there is no time otherwise would have existed it's not either or proposition it's not different vehicle i realized ok i think you're probably started i can't see the caulking i'm sorry about that i'd be reopening a bankruptcy case on the courts of health is of no independent legal significance or consequence and reopening is quote merely a ministerial or mechanical act which allows the court file to be retrieved from the stacks of the closed cases to enable the court to receive a new request for relief and that's that cases in repose two thousand and four bankruptcy lexus seven seven eight it's from a bankruptcy of the benefit of credit and i'm not sure that that case helps you at all i'm in my my argument is that they are not they can't be paid on their debts when their debts have been discharged they have to revoke their just charge journey determined not to liquidate it he had the power to do so now that's even ignoring the fact that the claims didn't exist at the time and this court in tyler in just november a stablished the principals here for an liquidated claim and an a and a bankruptcy declaration they say the property interest has to exist at the time of the petition and it's sherman that you should look at statement yes there were there was a cut dress but what i can speak to that there was a comment in the deposition of death underhill and the question was when did she learn of the acts of defendants she answered april of two thousand and nine it wasn't specific and there wasn't further questioning to find out what she learned and when she learned it but when we look at the documents terry added in spillover the complaints from the florida defendants is filed and it's my proposition that the procurement of the breech is the element the necessary element here and that didn't exist until september thirtieth of two thousand thank you very thankful the matter is submitted and we thank you for your argument the court may now that you're in court