attempt to preserve three minutes for rebuttal this is a case about property rights in the bankruptcy estate vested under federal law the bankruptcy court and the district court improperly allowed had a life to stay and the debtor dies there's nothing for the trustee to hold i disagree i disagree because the state is now the owner of those rights under the bankruptcy code the all of those rights become ownership of the chapter seven trustee and it is measured by the life of the a state which continues to live the bankruptcy estate is created under five forty one of the bankruptcy code lunatic with the question was will differ the question was if the debtor had a dies does life thinks they expire it may it may because now we're talking about a life state that's traded on the that's traded prior to the petition date we're talking about is on the petition date what does the better half the debtor has a that's the argument on the other side that's the argument that lower courts help i agree but i disagree the bankruptcy law and now applies the bankruptcy law specifically provides that those rights and interests belong to the estate allows the chapter seven trust you sell that right to sell the joint tenants rights right out from under whomever the joint tenants were is that written three sixty three eight your honor it provides that the trustee has the right to sell property of the bankruptcy  problem here is to determine what rights continue with the other joint tenant if any and what rights are given automatically in toto or not to the trustees right that's the issue  survivorship of the other joint tenant just like a life estate isn't that when when a bank of somebody goes in a manger scene they have a life the trustee doesn't get in the state and fee simple you'd agree with that that and treat it as a cult and i'm saying because there are different property interests i think that that's probably right that well least some of the statute provides that and prior cases had stated severs that joint tenancy increases has in common and the statute was changed to make sure that doesn't happen however it's our position that the estate now stands in the shoes and that is replete with in the bankruptcy proceedings and lost all rights in that property you know immediately upon his death because there was a sip shiri or right in the property but the debtor had lost and given up his right to that property many months before that when he filed a chapter of bankruptcy but you know he could only give what he had that's correct on the petition date and that's the measuring stick what is it he have on that petition date because there are other parties that interest here not just the widow here or the other joint tenants there are creditors who have a right to be paid something from the bankruptcy estate and that's exactly what the bankruptcy code does it lock creditor right it makes him a bonus i personally are of the if of the property of the estate in order to use that against other creditors not a creditor no she's not and there's been no transaction you know her ownership interest of the entire parcel without our joint tenants that's the argument of the other side we disagree that that happened because the joint has the right for transfer to the bankruptcy estate on the petition days for purposes of bankruptcy don't we look to state law to determine property interest we do and it's pretty clear here that state law would recognize the simple in the surviving joint tenant but for the bankrupt interesting i agree that if he was not in a bankruptcy and he passed away she would become the sole owner of the property in this case i agree with that there is a bankruptcy proceeding here and there are rights that the federal government the congress has pas rights to the estate they make the estate of the owner of those interests stands in the shoes actually owns those shoes if you will and so the bankruptcy estate has the right to continue to have the ability to sell that property to pay creditors and to applies we apply what does the bank's recall of you guys and you did not cite a single day where any court has interpreted the bankruptcy code in the way that you're suggesting where they have hel doesn't give you any additional powers or authorities or run the well what it says is that the bankruptcy shall proceed as if he had not passed away let's says in the same manner so far as possible as though the deaths were incompetency had not occurred the great so in my life estate example it would not be possible for the bankruptcy court to continue to exercise any authority over the life estate ha for morning or understood morning my name is michael gates i am here on behalf of the of holly andrea transmission mr notion is the surviving spouse of the debtor in this case she was not a debtor in the bankruptcy court as the court probably is aware of would have made any difference if there had been a pending attempt formal attempt by the trustee to sever the joint tenancy there might have been yes your honor but the reality is that he didn't do that bankruptcy case was filed in august of two thousand and fifteen of the original petition the trustee took no action on this home and crested butte colorado until june fifteenth of two thousand and sixteen so ten months later and approximately a week after the trustee knew that the debtor had passed away he took notes he made no attempts whatsoever i think it's understood and agreed in the record that in fact the parties by the parties that there was no other indication of any attempt either by the trustee or by gregory tradition to sever their joint tenancy  while it was still while the debtor was still alive but to answer your question directly it might have made a difference because the trustee would have had a right he could exercise on at that point once the debtor passed he no longer had a right to exercise he would have no right to exercise and most of the severance had been completed rather than just pending correct right but he didn't do anything he didn't attempt to market the property he didn't do anything with it  i think agreed and understood stipulated in the record that in this particular case there are some other cases out there that suggested a debtor may have misrepresented what the interest was this is not one of those cases the debtor represented from the beginning that he owned this property in joint tenancy with his wife tragic situation but it was and our minds to address one of the points they raise in their brief it's immaterial how he died or why he died to the determination of the court here i think it's understood quite well in butner versus the united states that absent certain special provisions in the bankruptcy code the code generally leaves the determination of property rights to the state and a federal bankruptcy court should take whatever steps are necessary to assure someone with a property rights such as mr newsham who had a joint tenancy right receives the same protection they would get it if it were in state court and there's no question in this particular case that if mr true newsham had passed away sixteen to suggest that and i think they sort of paraphrase it a little bit conveniently it state it actually states that it will not abate a liquidation case to the extent that there's something it's practical to still be able to proceed with it but doesn't mean that it creates a property right it is a procedural rule the united states constitution gives congress the right to make bankruptcy law and the bankruptcy rules are procedural rules they do not create substantive right  this particular case they have left it to the state of colorado in the state of colorado has a history with this there are actually two cases in colorado that address this one from the ninety's approximately nine hundred ninety three applying what we've done before unities test in colorado supreme court abolished before unity's house in colorado and it was so that that case is no longer really instructive to us because there's no four unities test or a bankruptcy court to apply to determine what the state in the sense that you can have a couple that are in financial distress they file bankruptcy maybe one of them is terminally ill and only that one file bankruptcy and then it's a way to avoid the debts for the purpose of the surviving spouse you have a reaction that what their argument was and then that line commits suicide so as to leave some property to the surviving yes i will tell you that argument is extremely distressing to my client the reality of it is that doesn't change in fact what i would suggest is that it would encourage someone then if they were suicidal to commit suicide rather than file bankruptcy which is the opposite of what the bankruptcy code is intended to do which is to give debtors a fresh start so under those circumstances i would say somebody's looking at this the way the trustee wants to read this which is essentially to give the trustee sor unfettered power to decide when and when the trustee wants to recognize state law it would it would discourage somebody from ever filing bankruptcy if they were in those circumstances they would simply allow suicide he should have done so before he filed bankruptcy and then that's quite frankly an offensive argument prior to the bankruptcy protection and that's our point here your honour's that that the determination of the bankruptcy property the property of the bank's estate is determined on the petition date there after the bankruptcy law applies and bank rule ten sixteen does in fact have the force of law and it is provided for under the rules making system that congress passed and gave the united states supreme court the rights to pass those rules ten sixteen has d benefits the debtor can get a discharge through ten sixteen on the other hand the liquidation continues as chapter seven is designed to do and so that this charge can be beneficial where you have a who may not get a number of claims filed against it so that the actual benefit that the joint tenants in the end and not having to pay those those creditors through the probate estate statutes passed by congress should be fully applied using the plain meaning of those statues if there are no further questions as with things thank you thank you thank you council for your arguments this morning the case is submitted