wrong if years in bankruptcy when we allow trustees maybe to take control of the claim that might be exempted maybe we should have those exemptions heard before litigations and sue that are in bankruptcy cases and argument i apologize if you can't hear me let me know i'm getting there in the middle of the cold i'm not sure what it is a hopefully getting over you coming in loud and clear and i'm with you in solidarity times go ahead thank you ok this is this is the nd part of the appeal with regard to the sale and compromise this is about the exemption as the court can see this is the oral argument was very short because my papers were late filed in this case and the judge only allowed me to orally argue on whether or not i should get a continuance or allowed to the hood with regard to the prison service trustees council characterizes my representation i did not get the movie papers because i said well i don't think i up as being contradictory i see that is still saying the same thing it's just that they're saying that they received that they sent them i just didn't receive them one thing i didn't point out in my brief but i want to point out to the court if you four by the time of the hearing which was january th or st we're at docket for eighty two so you're talking about seventy different docket entry i hymns alone in that docket over a thirty day period and this is a merits well here i supplied you with the court reporter's transcript in may two thousand and eighteen where the judge clearly said well since this claim was not liquidated at that time i was still in chapter thirteen running my own case was supposed to go to trial june st two thousand and eight and the judge said we'll just do that sex that nd part of the analysis and then your claim after you get some dollars to put in there i didn't obviously in the trustees and does mention the need to for proof of your your support but it was really hammered home in the tentative regarding the ford motor exemption so you can't just take the trustees because that's where appears all that language came from and the trustees exemption objection dealt with much more than just ford ford was pretty focused it was they just cared about them and the judge said pretty clearly that you had not establish anything the matter fact i believe your position was you didn't have to right yet at the time because it was because it was liquidated kla personal injury it was exempt what and you also believe that you didn't have the burden of proof right i didn't believe i still don't believe that looking at the case logs i have cases say the objector has the burden of proof they didn't come up with  anything and that was where i stood but the judge again these hearings were all in the same day long hearings my understanding though was when judge smith was talking about this is without prejudice obviously i mean in a way we're talking about exemptions that can be amended in any time anyway so how could it be with prejudice how  preclude it when you amend it and we did have an amended one if it's an amended one it's not exactly the same as the st one will it has to be not exactly the same i mean you can't amend it you can't lose and then amend it and say same thing not precluded right right exactly and and it was different because if you look at the schedule in my case you had to look at the a m b along with the exemption so it was different because when you looked at the a m b it listed it out differently so the n b a was amended in may and then the exemption was filed the amended exemption was filed in the them for what was the difference between the exemptions the difference between the exemptions the st one the a and b just had t b d it didn't have a dollar amount at all and it had those seven thousand dollars you know total between with all the cases and then the exemption on that specific amount and that had the amount in there so there was a difference the difference it's liquidated versus i liquidated i didn't put down the amount of the liquidator because i was contesting that settlement amount of the one hundred and sixty seven thousand five hundred so there was a  difference if you know i know they say it was exactly the same but it really wasn't exactly the same at all is it necessary that i mean i think it's more as it was substantively different is sort of different given the the manner in which the judge decided it the st time ok yes that was not substantively different but the judge never ruled that it was an apple she never said that's the wrong law that's the wrong section you know she just said you didn't do analysis b you didn't give me subsection b which is the part of how much is necessary for your support right so there wasn't any disagreement on that i have used the wrong code section so that stayed the same you're right so i don't see that you know if we want to look at claim preclusion again it's not a claim preclusion because the judge agreed with my side on that was the right number to use so counsel are you suggesting that if you went back and amended it again and change the number that the you have a right then to come back in and really get it a rd time see that's an interesting question that's that that is an interesting question because actually under the rules technically but there is a case that says even if you do amend doesn't mean that the amendments valid but technically yes in a way but then again that would i was making appeal not worthwhile why not just sit there and amanda all the time right so the judge specifically said we're withholding part b so there was no final on the merits you know this whole cause of action decided you know the nature of the claim this settlement was not just about how about money you know i checked the one hundred and sixty seven thousand five hundred dollars in the way it was split up but if you look there's seven other pages of other stuff and like they changed my life story they made in missions that i completely objective they took away my right to a jury trial they've prevented me from doing any future claims against ford in the future or any of ford's affiliates or you know everybody else that to be slander in the very st page other people are using it to their advantage as we speak and that is i think that that's why it ties in that this exemption should have been exempt because it is of such a personal nature it kind of shows it is of such a personal nature that you have all these other things that are in there if a trustee is going to settle something subtle breach of contract case very easy just to give the dollar amount and do that but there's nothing in the code in the federal bankruptcy code that says the trustee can go ahead and waive these other six or seven pages worth of things and i object to that part also then talking about the money i did have like just one sentence in my brief about that number one the breach of contract was on for those complaints against me my complaint against ford was  what this settlement said was the settlement said one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for breach of contract makes no sense and it said whatever that other mom was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars here he's on the next matter so you'll get to hear him all right as well something separate you know stepping back from fundamentally prior to the trustees appointment there was a better father schedules and schedules there was a claim exemption you know in a particular little set of litigation claims the prior the former trustee objected and a creditor objected and there was a hearing before the bankruptcy court on those objections  appeared she filed papers and there was a ruling there actually were two orders that came out of that one on the former trustees objection and one on the creditors objection and the debtor didn't timely appeal and let's go back to that because there were too tentative and then there was hearings in the trustees here hearing does the ted have does have some wiggle in that  know based upon the unknown liability that time and then judge smith did have language in the trustees exemption hearing that you need to it and if so how does that affect the finale issue there's nothing in the orders that says that they weren't final judgment doesn't say at the hearing that these are her decision is in the final hearing what she said is what the law is is that you go ahead and you know i don't have a quote from him that you know centrally a exemptions and we'll deal with the objections that come and that's what happened if the debtor in and then the debtors that the order from particularly from ford's order because it is hatch is the tentative which is incorporated in the order is very clear what the court is doing it says the debtor didn't meet her burden on that issue there is there is ramifications to the judge smith's ruling in that respect in that she's she's really deciding these exemption claims on the merits well and there was all she intended to appeal from both but ultimately this court that it appears that only only we decided on one of the issues and it was always a question of my mind whether both orders were being appealed but ultimately the bab ruled and dismissed the appeal from the trustees  order as untimely and that is argument in that respect was that the order was in making a deal because you got to immediately edging notice from this court saying your peals untimely please explain was it wasn't  final and she said it wasn't final citing the same language from judgment at the ruling or at the hearing on that and and the bass comment in its order dismissing the deal of untimely is that there is nothing in the record that says it was untimely in the and she didn't believe that it believes that the orders are final you know that order particularly was final and had you know it was final didn't say precludes the fact it was final at that point again there was no subsequent order it a ruling with respect to the other order but i think the bab addressed finality in dismissing that appeal and found that the appeal wasn't or the skewed the order wasn't interlocutory and was final and again on finality you look to see what the judges you know intention was well there's nothing in the orders judgements ruling it's very clear it doesn't say again this is my interim order there's no interim language and i've never seen an interim exemption order but i guess you could do it just she's not intending to make a final ruling so i hope that answers your question moving on to  exact same set of litigation claims and it is true that during this time period the trustee had settled those claims court heard the appeal of that one thousand motion before but that one thousand motion isn't before the court here it was the prior appeal and those issues  will be decided whether that was reasonable and all that and it's decision on from that appeal but with respect to the claims of exemption the trustee objected and he objected on the grounds that the debtor already had her hearing on the merits on those exemptions and that judgment that already ruled in two separate orders denying them and the separate claimed exemption the new claims exemption were the same and the debtor clearly unhappy with that and wasn't entitled to a nd bite of the apple three those are the same two exemptions that were claimed again she ruled that the debtor hadn't shown that the litigation proceeds were reasonable and necessary for her support and those are the same litigation claims that were being brought again so the value there doesn't make a difference it's just what's reasonable nesters for she was able to show it with the lower amount because she didn't provide apparently any evidence on that aspect and judge this ruling in the for decision of the th quarter is really clear dependents of the judge and debtor she says adair spends much of his opposition to this particular objection on other things and doesn't you know doesn't address this issue and at the end her conclusion is a debtor has not demonstrated that even if the full amount was and kind of the shifting the burden is here in this situation the rules do say under four thousand and three dollars that it's the objectors burden but the case on the th circuit it's clear that where state law twist flips the burden that then and as it does here under seven hundred and four thousand one hundred and forty that the debtor has the burden to show what's reasonable and necessary for support and she didn't do that and she doesn't get a nd bite of the apple by just amending again because she failed to meet that burd n the st time it's her burden she was supposed to put in evidence there was a there was a hearing on that and the court ruled and that's the purpose of the finale of the order she doesn't get to do that now so the trustee objected  with respect to the there's a quest for continuance the debtor filed her papers less than twenty four hours before the hearing and i was at the hearing the debtor was at the hearing and it was four hundred and sixteen pages now the debtor concedes here again this morning that she was just really busy there was a lot of stuff on the docket i recognize there's a lot of stuff on the docket because the debtor is very litigious and that question in and here and by the way motions for continuous kind of coupling those two together are due under a local rules three days ahead of time and here within twenty four hours the papers are filed and the debtor in the trial in the debtor or excuse me the trustee and the court  there at a hearing with sort of i haven't even seen them yet to be honest i was at the hearing they had come through e c f yet but we had just gotten word that something had been filed in the court refused to consider them and that's not an abuse of discretion your honor and when you work your way through the analysis under continuances if you using that which is a court look out for a continuance you look at substantial prejudice to the to the debtor the debtor has to show in the th circuit substantial prejudice and here there is none because this is a pure legal question i think that her argument would have been limited to what was in our papers the court did not consider her newspapers that that was that clarification then the other things that you have to look at for a continuance of their abuse of discretion w continuance that she wanted to have an evidentiary hearing and hear there was no evidence hearing required the only reason you have an evidentiary is so there's material evidence material facts in dispute here there weren't any is a pure legal question so the debtor s request for an evidentiary hearing again separately it would not have been an abuse of discretion because there was no need for evidence during a court and have to have one looking at the other factors inconvenience to the court the better to these papers on the court and the trustee twenty four hours at a time the court would have to have another hearing and prejudice or harm to the or to the requesting cup party from the court's denial again i don't think there's any prejudice to the debtor by the court going forward because we're looking at this purely as a legal issue while on the other hand there's quite a bit of prejudice to the trustee in the estate because we have to have another contested hearing which we were prepared for that morning on another day and that's quite an expense to the estate was any of the information or and in that declaration i believe she asserts several facts that would fall into that bucket of facts i've not analyzed them separately and the court didn't consider them but i think it's true that there was don't understand it with respect to the personal nature of the claims that it argues we've addressed that in the prior appeal it's not an issue here on appeal again what the argument is is those claims under five hundred and forty one serious witchboard and other authorities are the allocation of this of the exemption again i don't believe that's an issue here on the appeal it was considered in relation to the motion to compromise it wasn't even an issue raised in that appeal what we hadn't just as the court knows is that t trustees special education council in coming up with that settlement determined that that's how the the amount of the settlement should be apportioned between the two major claims in that lawsuit ten percent for one to ninety percent for the other and there was evidence in relation to the motion of compromise or why that was appropriate but again it's not an issue here on the appeal in four has any other questions i think that sort of something nice and thank  it is not true that i was allowed orally argue at the hearing in january two thousand and nineteen if you look at page six the record is transcript the court clearly says ok hold on i thought you want to make a record about about the substance because i'm not going to hear the substance of the motion that puts opposing party a disadvantage trying to respond to something that he's not had a chance to review and i said ok and then the court said so what i was what i meant when i said that allow you to make your record as you make your record regarding the service issue but is it unfair where you file things late and not allow you to argue for the st time at a hearing where he hasn't had any opportunity or you the other side hasn't had an opportunity to review your arguments is that an abuse of discretion and if so why well this was definitely unfair that was unfair the reason why it was unfair and prejudicial to me and not the other side just because i requested number one i requested a continuance so that the other side would not be prejudiced or does she have to give you one she doesn't have to give me one but she could specially here with exemptions because the rule under exemptions it's supposed to be liberally construed debtor is supposed to be given every exemption that they're entitled to it's not exemptions aren't supposed to be a playground for the trustee to try to scoop more out of the estate given that this is the nd time the exemption issues had come up you don't agree that it's so the point is you're saying you're saying in effect she had to give you enormous latitude and i'm asking because this is an abuse of discretion standard and you know i'm asking and in analyzing this can't we take into consideration the fact that you' hearing may two thousand and eighteen hearing that the claim was liquidated we didn't know what it was at that point in time we thought i would be able to go to trial in june two thousand and eighteen that's where everybody's mind was on this issue and you know if you read the she abused her discretion or yes because if we're just looking at rest today that we're talking about an issue of law we're talking about legal argument there or collateral estoppel i could've you know she could have let me just argue the legal principles and pointing out you know the various differences of this really wasn't on the merits and the reasons why and i couldn't even go there so should we didn't even have to get into the dearth of the four hundred and sixteen pages you know to show the support so yes i do agree with you well i'm filed my proof of claim which showed how much i had invested in the case and the costs that was already before the court it was like i said it was new because it's not a liquidated it went from a liquidated to liquidated the court did refuse to look at the four hundred and sixteen pages because i'm a debtor i'm not allowed to use the e c f system so those pages were filed during the day and uploaded during the day the day before of the hearing i had asked and it's in my papers i had asked the other side for their papers because i didn't receive that motion they knew that earlier in the week that i hadn't received that motion and even put in my papers that they refused to give me the papers you know they refused to email me a copy to get those papers and i had to get them on my own so they were well aware even twenty four hours before the hearing that i was going to oppose that motion and i knew the papers and i didn't have the papers on trying to get through the city send them to