conduct under under state law can be shown without proof that the defendant actually intended to be injury sustained those purposes of five hundred and twenty three aced it dead are distinguished from intentionally inflicted court injuries now distinction is important because here what the district court did is i get why conductors conduct to the tour of conversions and when surely duty and even under that type of claim which wasn't proven in this case intent to injure is not a requisite element for breach that is sharing duty type of breach of duty or tortious conduct ok so then it goes to the facts of the case correct well it does yes but here it's important to know that the district court like the but it's important to show the judge that that will requirement does require specific intent to cause injury and the th circuit actually analyze this very issue in the courts while opinion i cited it in that case you had a that specific towards and in that case they were looking at wisconsin state law and the reason for that is because under wisconsin state law like missouri state law the toward a conversion does not include an intent to cause harm and well what's paul said with this seven circuit was you can't get to willfulness on that word and so if you have a district court judgment as we have here where they've hung their hat on the port of conversion you can never get to well because they were there using missouri state law and there's no intent because injury is an element under missouri's conversion standard and really to hold otherwise  it's an impermissible expansion of what should be the limits on five hundred and twenty three dollars a sex because again a supreme court even said it's it's not all intentional towards that can be included it's only intentional towards where there based on the supreme court's mandate i would argue that i don't now i will know in the th circuit and it appears to be a split within that circuit it appears there is one case that well just a sample intentional it we have to be careful under five hundred and twenty three dollars a six because well i malicious are two separate standards i mean so you have to show not only is there an injury but it was caused through willful and malicious conduct were ending debtors a fresh start and so by impermissibly allowing the word where there's no there's no scienter there's no intent to cause injury as a requisite element to that sounded in conversion under missouri law and there's no question that missouri law applied if you recall the breach of contract judgment issue in this case stems from a federal diversity again you have to read the geiger page while they do state that they further state that not all breaches the contract would rise to that level in the absence of intentionally tortious conduct that also meets the five hundred and twenty three  because you have such different standards you know on one hand you're dealing with with mere compensatory damages versus tortious damages additional and initial intentional court order knowing breach of contract would be far too expansive to the language chosen by congress and so i think you have to read that carefully  claim that conduct asked to have an intent to cause injury and he simply don't get to that under the th claim of conversion which is which is what we're dealing with here and i would say it was it pelleas burden to come up with any twelve claims that it thought included intent to injure it was a crime element in the just didn't do it by relying on conversion here i mean they made two passing references to conversion and their  of the one hundred and sixteen dollars exhibits every single deposition designation including thirty three dollars of which are his own testimony mr luker its own testimony he's basically excluded his own testimony is basically excluded a huge part of testimony of court itself sit in the gutters in the guy or well in the st film the th circuit held that simply having a state court judgement in favor of the creditor against the debtor and they said as to the issue of injury just the issue of injury clearly breach of contract judgment from a state court or you know here was a federal district court sitting in dursley that satisfies injuries so we have injury and there is nothing wrong with what the  pointed out that was done on the merits after a trial there was a several day hearing and there's a detail transcript which is in the record of the of that hearing in these detail findings from judge norton in the bankruptcy court will were they likened it to an intentional tort they didn't say you have to tap intentional towards self because that wouldn't make any sense in fact in the heat the here who associates case which is the circuit decision directly checks and he physically took the checks that were supposed to go to my plight and that was part of the settlement agreement and the amend it is that the checks would be in two and they would be given by the client the  similar intentional violations settlement agreements not compete agreements can be in these kinds of circumstances court and in district court were provided to this court so there was a view of debtors testimony and and also at least testimony over the course of a two day trial conducted before a judge nor in the bankruptcy court i mean as a district court held that that was a sufficient record for this court for that worded and i would offer for this court to conduct a thorough review of the record and and again it's you know it was their discretion to proceed forward with a claim they did they like in the conduct to conversion so we're relying on a missouri state laws on that issue and there's simply no embezzlement where there is absolutely intended balck there they chose not to and they should be bound by that just as it is plaintiffs are in all cases they can only go forward with the claims they brought and and so they are stuck here with this conversion essentially conversion claim which is what the bankruptcy quivered in district bird like in his actions too and so if that's what they hang their head on you can't get to will the real risk here it is if if this is impermissibly expand it to include intentional torts where there is no scienter or intent to cause injury it's an impermissible expansion and you're bankruptcy debtors right to receive a fresh start and with that