such a good morning your honor is my name is troy a steward and i represent the appellant's peter eco bossy and richard asked bossy and cases eighteen dash eleven forty eight and eighteen dash eleven forty nine respectively and sometimes they get caught him out so we have how much time would you like to reserve i think at this point your honor i would like to reserve at least five minutes and if there's any additional time  issue here on august twenty ninth twenty seventeen there was a status conference in the bankruptcy court on the basis of a status report that was filed by me on behalf of my clients of both parties were supposed to file status reports  ice i appeared on august twenty ninth twenty seventeen the a pelleas counsel did not the purpose of the hearing the status conference on august twenty ninth twenty seventeen was for judge salsman to hear from us as to what the remaining claims were to be tried  based on the status report we had the hearing based on the remaining claims judge salzman set the trial for to resolve the remaining claims for december fourth twenty seventeen there were three claims and those claims are set out in my client's adversary complaints with respect to peter it's paragraph thirty one through thirty three and thirty five and with three and that's that's case bankruptcy adversary case sixteen zero one four nine nine and with respect to richard of ossie there paragraphs thirty three thirty five and thirty seven and that's with respect to bankruptcy adversary adversary case sixteen dash zero one five zero two and as this court knows so with respect to the motion for summary judgment that were filed the question is whether or not those motions for summary judgment address those claims and the answer is no they did not address those claims so to date judgment there could not have been a final judgment with respect to judge selfness orders so all the claims have been resolved now well all of the claims except for the claims that were not resolved when judge when when jan salsman decided that there would be a trial in december fourth twenty seventeen and that it is one of two things either all the claims have been resolved in which case we were final appeal judgement or they haven't in which case we don't have a final appeal judgment which is it which is it a quarter in your view  if you ask me my view it would be no they're not but judge russell is the one that entered the order and so i didn't have any control over that we my argument was that record that those those claims needed to be resolved but judge the defendant if the police were to filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to those claims but they did not when you say they need to be resolved one of the problems with this case is that there's there's claims at the bankruptcy level in the in the classic claims sense that would allow someone to recover from assets of the estate and that would otherwise be discharged and not recoverable from post petition assets of the debtor and then there are what i'll call intra trust claims is that the word i want to use but interactions that have to be resolved to to win these claims that you say you need still need to be resolved with what are they and in the sense of are they what judgment subject saltsman did was she went through a variety of claims and said no one percent of jurisdiction this appeal appears to be about intra trust interactions that will be resolved by recourse to the trust document the probate court those the adversary complaints did not allege those claims the adversary right point only addressed the claims that were being made against my clients pre partition claims seeking to impose personal liabilities and those of the claims that were in front of judge sauls meant that we're going to go to trial we see resolved seven claims as the court knows but there are remaining claims and that's why she set the matter for trial in december fourth two thousand and seventeen when judge russell took the case over and they file their motion for summary judgment what i'm saying is they didn't address those claims they didn't bring those claims up so those claims are outstanding but the judge also when he granted the motions for summary judgment he made it for grant of summary judgment and that was the end of it and what i'm saying here is that those claims the claims that have been alleged in my client's adversary complaints have not been resolved so this puts my clients in a position of having to go back into the bankruptcy court and file adversary complaints sermon i ask you a question is is that your principal complaint on appeal is identify any defenses there are no material facts if you want to go to the material facts the material facts have to do exclusively with matters that will be resolved in state court in front of the probate court they have nothing to do with the determination of the discharge ability o yes there's a second question what does that mean what is the scope of the discharge and isn't that what judge russell decided why wasn't that covered by the complaint that the scope of the discharge because all we were seeking is that terminations of the discharge  particular debts not the scope of the discharge i mean oh you said in your complaint that there was an issue about trying to collect money from the trust i mean that there was an allegation in the complaint about how the brother the trustee brother was have had to do anything with the core claims of whether the claims were discharged or not and that's what we're talking about here and so i mean i'm going to i'm going to say i'm sorry i disagree with that those claims weren't resolved that it may now you have a convince me so i should be transparent about it in five minutes you haven't convinced me in a very long argument that everything has it never solved i don't think you briefed it with precision in front of this panel and the way i read it get restless did it  the internal trust things which is what you're talking about and if we set some extent in these these these paragraphs of the complaint that that you mention i was also think about that presented a different way because at least one of us is is unconvinced well i guess at this poin you've got four minutes and forty five seconds to go and what i guess what i don't understand your honor is that you're saying that there claims that there is no indication there is no evidence at all that judge russell decided the claims that remain entered the modest sided they weren't discharge he decided the extent of the discharge which was entirely appropriate and then he did the entirely appropriate thing and said what that means y the trustee is a non debtor the claims that trustee meigs against the trust which is a non there they don't have anything to do with the discharge ability of debts against my clients the claims that my clients sought to have discharged are claims that the trustee sought to impose against their beneficial interest in the trust that's a different thing sir and that's the whole point and i'm not i'm not convinced that you just said the critical thing you probably should have been arguing the whole time which is the why the beneficial interest of the trust is something how do how do those claims implicate my they're not claims by the trustee but the trust trustee not that chapter set interest asked by the state court trustee against the trust they don't implicate my clients at all he can make all of those flames he wants just so long as he cannot make claims against my clients beneficial interest in the trust and those were what were there or maybe claims in front of judge salsman that were not resolved judge russell did not deal with those issues and neither res judicata claim preclusion or collateral stop issue preclusion is going to is going to hold up if the if my clients have to go back into the bankruptcy court and seek determinations as to whether those debts are discharged because they were not resolved by judge russell according  are i think this is fairly straightforward we have two orders entered by the bankruptcy court the first was the order granting the motion for summary judah cation by james salzman which said here is for obligations those are discharged debts the second the question came up at the status conference and judge russell says ok well it's obvious those are discharged debts we know that we know that those are the in percentage of liability is discharged and the trustee i believe can't pursue the appellant's individually but beyond that what is the discharge mean and the argument was made at the status conference and in some pleading filed another forms that were brought to the bankruptcy court's attention that appellant's were taking the position that the discharge went well beyond that and that's something addition to additionally and that judgment to clarify what is the scope of the discharge injunction and that's exactly what we did and what we argued was that it does not discharge the liability of any non debtor parties that does not discharge  claims by f l e against the trust and it does not just charge post petition obligations of the individuals and it also did not discharge the surcharge detailed findings of conclusions of law mean couldn't you make a least a theoretical argument that that's not the right court to make that decision i mean typically a bankruptcy court determines whether a debt is just charged as a primary jurisdiction but if you think about it if you if you're got a we're going to litigate it and say a state court whether some conduct falls within the scope of the discussion that court would initially decide what the conduct is make its findings of fact and wouldn't have jurisdiction to determine whether that that had been discharged the discharge injunction is an injunction of the bankruptcy court i think the bankruptcy court always has jurisdiction to define and clarify the scope or the conduct this if you don't mind before the conduct this is litigated kind of a prospect of ruling as to what if you if this is what we're talking about then it's going to be discharged well at the top of the court issues an injunction you can issue injunction with a great deal of specificity of your life if it chooses to and i think what the court did here say here is what the bankruptcy courts injunction specifically means in the context of this case and this is one of the joining in this is what i'm not enjoying and i think causes of action and then there are their own injunction causes a baksh and get back in for coke but you're just saying well this case is a little unusual in the fact that you don't see at least in my experience a lot of what wasn't enjoined and all the issues of the the complaint raises all of these obligations that came up in the state probably probate court proceeding and so clearly what the entire point of the adversary proceeding was is to try to figure out what is the interplay between the bankruptcy court injunctions and the state court probate proceedings and what effect if any does the bankruptcy court injunction have the probate court proceeding i think that's helpful for the public or to know what it should and shouldn't or can and can't do with respect to the administration of the trust so that is what this case is about that is the core of this case is about to argue that the bankruptcy court doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue an order clarifying what the injunction means what its own injunction means when it was raised by the debtors and they've asked the court to issue a declaratory relief order on that i think is surprising and the again i think the underlying general principle of this case is fairly simple which is that the discharge injunction protects and discharges obligations of the debtors in the bankruptcy court does not discharge obligations of known debt or parties and it's also i think fairly soon straightforward principle  the trust my words not trestles there's no modification to the trust contract the discharge didn't affect it it will be worked out however it's worked out and all and correct and all of the questions about what expenses of the saying it's appropriate for the bankruptcy court to interfere with the inner workings of the trust or determinations of what expenses should and shouldn't be allowed the purpose of the this adversarial proceeding in this summary judgment is to say the discharge doesn't affect those questions and the and the probate court doesn't need to concern itself with the discharge when deciding whether or not the trust is money to reimburse the trustee for expenses for example now in response to the argument that he was making which i going to ask him where it is in his brief on appeal his opening brief on appeal because it seems to me a slant from the many arguments that were made what is it is what he was arguing these issues that you just talked about the i intra trust issues but i what claims is he in your understanding alleging i'm not going soft i don't know and in fact even before we brought this motion for summary judgment the bankruptcy court had set a trial date the question that we had had and we had raised it with the court and we had raised it with opposing counsel is what is the trial going to be about what are the questions of fact that the bankruptcy court would even what are the disputed facts and even in this motion for summary judgment we pointed out there were i think we had twenty four there was twenty four facts listed in our statement of undisputed facts twenty one of them were undisputed the other three were only slightly disputed but not particularly material and if we were to have a trial i honestly don't know what the trial would be acknowledging what the purpose of it would be there really this is and all the briefing shows this is not a dispute about the facts there really this is this additional questions i have nothing furthe yeah that is exactly my point the claims that he just went over that that's not in our complaint that what you're referring to judge taylor as enter a trust claims those again no issue here those are completely those are be decided by the probate court the question here is whether or not the claims that they are seeking against my clients to impose personal liability against my clients beneficial interest in the trust have been resolved and the answer that is no when you talk about in persona those claims have not been completely resolved your honor there are three claims and the total five hundred and seventy six thousand dollars five hundred seventy six thousand three hundred sixty four dollars and twenty four cents three claims against my clients if they are pursuing  surcharge claims and that you're saying that violates the discharge you know that because the claims are a preview titian claims and they seek to impose personal liability and as you go through judge i seek to impose personal liability because they will distort my client's beneficial interest in the trust if will cost your clients of money but i understand that that is be the same as imposing personal liability but that is exactly what judge sauls when you go through sheaf she found that is when you impose a judge when you seek to destroy my client's beneficial interest can you hearing on july eleventh two thousand and seventeen that is the transfer in which you and she goes through and she said i understand that there's an arguably an argument being made that these are trust expenses she said and she goes no but i'm referring to the appellee robert declaration and what they are what they are seeking to do is impose a personal liability against my clients and therefore she decided that those were discharged debts she just salsman point by point she considered it and it's an argument they made in opposing our motion for s that what they were saying is oh no these are trust claims and just soft and said no i understand you're making that but based on the declarations filed by robert casi in the state court in which he is seeking to surcharge my client's beneficial interest which would shift the burden to my clients and wipe out counsel i'm sorry for interrupting you but but there's never any period to your statement so i can't wait for you your time is up what you have in this case is now submitted to the court will issue an opinion thank you very much thank you