bankruptcy pending the the appellant then actually they didn't even live their causes of action in their bankruptcy it was later brought forward and standing at that moment there was no standing at the moment moment of the appealing on the yes because there at that moment if they feel within the timeframe of the appeal there would be no time to effectuate abandonment with the hearing think that's true and that's why i mediate notice of stay was filed with the district court to indicate that there was a bankruptcy filing it's interesting to note that the district court rather than even waiting till the date of the hearing immediately three days later i believe it was within two months which is the timeframe for the period of giving out notice allowing anybody who wants to object to the banishment to do so immediately thereafter that's the distinction here is that there's a direct effect upon the bankruptcy estate with the issue of the validity of the lien because once that loan was rescinded that lien should have been removed and one of the asset was brought into bankruptcy  right in that particular case and this particular case it was contingent upon the bank doing what they were required to do which is remove their security and provide us with the tender on that which they never they did not do so they violated  bankruptcy proceeding had the bank already foreclosed on the property you know the bank is not foreclosed on the property as of yet it's still pending as to i just want to reserve some time the abandonment relates back and makes the appeal that allen only yeah the up here was filed in the debtor's name due to an understandable mistake and not for a strategic reason now the case is that deal with those who are in the bankruptcy contacts are the same is the case is not bankruptcy cases under real seventeen case five thirty seven f second ten thirty one said that when there is no difficulty and to try manning the right party to bring an action and when there has been no excusable mistake ma some party there is no relation back so here it was it was across clear what party had standing at the time it couldn't have them inexcusable mistakes now what  difficult to get the trustee to private notice of appeal and in fact the trustee turned out to be not interest in the case but final appeal in the daughter's name is also a very risky thing to do because it's potentially a bankruptcy crime under eighteen wall street journal want to particular period you'd have to find the index interest rate which was the london interbank rate it's published in the wall street journal and then preaching those forty five days once you had ascertaining the the interest rate from the wall street journal you have to the disclosure document or are doing calculations based on the numbers in the disclosure document ok what congress did here was to establish something like a holder in due course or a bonafide purchaser role you know that the whole basis of those rules is that if you're not aware of the fact that you're not aware of a claim you take three of it when you purchase the asset so i think that the court has to do here in incorporating the statute i don't want to give the idea that it's a choice between subdivision c and subdivision in any of the statute it's really what the clerk should really do here is to attempt to reconcile the statute that's the first rule of statutory construction and certainly state of the courts should strive to get independent meaning to each part of the statute and there's an obvious way to reconcile subdivisions see and now another rule of statutory interpretation is that if you don't believe that these are readily reconcilable another rule of statutory interpretation is that the where where there's a later amendment that prevails over those cases incidentally whether it's fate you know damage claim or research and claim it's not clear but if they are very broad in the statement of the principle that there are there is no duty to get beyond the disclosure  top of it as an innocent or an understandable mistake on the part of counsel since not knowing who to name i have no control over the trustee and forcing them to do to f notice of appeal to preserve the right of the appeal because they the notice of appeal doesn't say who asked to file if you look at the rules of notice of appeal it says an appeal must be a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days it does not say flew must file that notice of appeal in front of the district apparent on the documents i believe that the if the rule is read that an interest rate can be taken out of the face of the document and placed someplace else that the banks then be pretty much shielded completely from ever having to come under the remedy is of truth in lending because all they have to do is take the interest rate outside which they did in this particular case where there was a twenty seven thousand dollar under disclosure on the interest rate in this case they just took the interest rate outside the the four corners of the document by stating it was in an interest and they're claiming that they completely  be on the face of the document it only requires because it is a section that's an exception to ian any and if you look at section eight uses the same language that was later put into ication so i think that that's not what congress intended to eviscerate all remedies under the rescission for all consumers because as you know the secondary market there's a large trafficking of mortgage loans on the secondary market all the lender would have to do would be to to have the interest rate outside the document send it to the secondary market and they leave it all truth in lending liability completely including real rescission i don't believe that's what congress