grounds that proved later to be untrue that they were they were not over the debt limit yet or number two had signed amended plan there were no objections filed to the plan the debtors council made an error in noticing the hearing is really a non factor because knowing filed an objection if someone had filed an objection than that would indicate that they had read the plan and noted the incorrect date and which point it could have been fixed but since no on being we didn't have time to go back and sort the math and show that the i r s that was counted twice and if that stripped off s was not a personal liability therefore not an unsecured debt in the case and had we had well had prior counsel had notice of these issues i'm certainly could have addressed them but when you show up to a hearing and these things are sprung on you that's unfair to your did your client request additional time if you did so what mr berman said was i would like to brief that and the judge made some comment about you lose on that issue that was the gist of what she said then there wasn't really any formal request for a specific time when no there was no request for a specific time now but he did ask for time to brief the issue you know there is an issue there terms of somebody not knowing the case but you could use appearance counsel if they were properly briefed and if they knew what the issues were so if they had raised the issue before the hearing i their appearance counsel could have been briefed on a regular counsel could have appeared correct and that's where it fell apart there's no evidence in the record that i could find that that this issue of the debt limit was ever raised before that's correct ok it was never raised before this was like st time brand new months long at that point in time without a confirmation that is correct but he was making the payments and the trustee had a substantial amount of money on hand that could have gone to creditors had the case been confirmed and with respect to the issue that the proof of claim of the st mortgage was not dealt with they were off in their math by a one thousand dollars and the plant clearly says your on a year since it was dismissed if we were to accept your arguments and either reverse remember what happens to that gap in the plan between last august when it was dismissed then essentially you know this you know twelve months so two thousand five hundred dollars payments is awfully hard to come up yeah well i think in fairness to the debtor should be told and that amount of time should not count towards the sixteen months is you know just an adequate opportunity you know to set something to fix something quite a while to fix all problems in this case arch what you're really saying here is that the judge just didn't have the support in the went back to court you said well we are eligible they had the numbers wrong and trust me honestly admitted that the numbers are wrong and the judge still just missed the case correct that isn't due process that's just for what did she dismissed the case for what was the basis for an unjustifiable delay to creditors and so there was an justifiable delay but also has to be prejudicial so why was it that to a limited amount of two thousand five hundred for secured unsecured in c priority seems like things were happening nothing ever happens as expeditiously as anybody wants but there are major things happening in that in that case why was it in reasonable well it was a reason because the length of time with a time alone can't make it on reasonable though it has to be contextual in this context where there are actions that was at the trial level or at the here initial hearing level that argument that they didn't qualify had to carry tremendous weight with her she said it did so once what once you realized your client realized that was wrong what was left to get this case confirmed and to get that money that was sitting there which is what my thirty five thousand dollars or something like that to creditors  the plane would have had to have noticed again ok and what so so we're talking another thirty days to get it noticed rough you know whatever rough numbers to get it noticed anything else because you didn't even object to your quite didn't even object to the plan that was pending i mean there was clearly a notice problem they've acknowledged that no question it would have to have some additional notice and the judge could have said hey if you don't make a payment in the interim so i spontaneousness in it not be fine with that of the passage of time but i'm really trying to struggle you said there's prejudice because they didn't get anything so what would it take was it was it not on the horizon were ready to get the grab the gold point at that time we're just another delay and there's no bigger it was the nature of the way you keep saying the way for fourteen months but again the fourteen months it isn't alone the indicator there's no cut off that twelve months is therefore per se and that under delay what was the undue part of it and it wasn't really explained in the in the transcript shows a was largely because this judge taylor indicated the focus was on the debt limit objection was soon within the motion to avoid lien and it appears from a reading of the record that there was a realization that the irises lien was larger than just the real property so i had to be an objection and that's what i mean it could have been done quicker but it was being done and it's akin to the judge taylor's point as the need for notice it's not like when the the debtor filed the nd play and they made a plan that they did not notice that they realize it had to be notice it was notice they just got it wrong so that seems to be the the the flavor of this case is some things were done wrong but they don't there's nothing that suggests that anything was done maliciously wrong but they were actually being done which is more than a lot of cases so why was it why was and do and where and where is the harm that's what trouble having you really can't argue i think here today that morning was given or that you know that's not a tool you have in your toolbox right well except that the local bankruptcy rules do specifically say that the plan does need to be council as you can see is that the panel started struggling you know we're bankruptcy judges none of us would have dismissed this case but we understand that judges are different and they have different standards and some judges are much more hard nosed than others and so and we get deference and the hard nosed judges prevail in this cart more often than not because we  understand they run their court and and we're not here to nd guess that kind of judgment or substitute our judgment for there's the problem here is that when we when we push away some of the problems here frequently the complaints are being made here are just wrong the eligibility issue which came up was just wrong the other things that the to get or needed to do the de be familiar with what is with the schedules are and what i think the eligibility issue is is substantive and frankly the fact that this is where i don't think i disagree but i do see a d process point which is you come in with a a significant argument you haven't objected to the plan you haven't raised it your client a kid saying you know and i'm not but your client hasn't raised it  previously it has sort of a gotcha quality to it and i'm not sure it would be right as it was factually wrong and i'm not trying be right as a matter of law to say what you do after the case is ongoing we usually look at the event the night circuit is telling us to look at the the time of the filing so that was a complicated legal issue and the attorney who was there again acknowledged they had appearance counsel would they have had a parent's counsel if they knew there was a serious attack on eligibility i doubt it would they have addressed it if they knew there was going to be a serious doubt attack on eligibility i doubt it you know that was that really changed the whole complection of that hearing in a fundamental way so  i just i guess i mean i mean noting now more than really asking your question which i guess to guess i get to do that but why isn't that a huge problem here and  common and there are some council that do appear regularly and some are better than others and and some actually do review the files and try to be familiar with the issues in the case do you honestly think though that an appearance council even the best will go back and re read the schedules where the issue is this plan that's in front of them after all the water that's gone under the bridge and would be anticipating  eligibility argument that you emphasize the case was intended for fourteen months eligibility is usually raised way in the rearview mirror and i again i'm not sure it's correctly raised when you change the character of debt during the course of the case as a matter of law well it was it was raised because the the emotion of with lean and the objection presented that issue but it wasn't it was an issue that along to the trustee know they were going to be doing this although it's fourteen months at some point way in the rearview mirror those motions were filed at the if you've told me that we had eight hearings why wasn't it why didn't you say earlier hey if you win on those you're not going to be eligible i mean i just that there's a gotcha quality to this that i have a real problem with right i mean i just i don't like the gotcha i and i don't i don't mean that because it wasn't something we were saving it was just something that we when we review the file again for the th or th time before the hearing that issue came up because we were looking at the new response case dismissed well again i think the court was relying on unfortunately the trust but the trust he said was incorrect and also relying on debtors apparent agreement with that issue that the debtor agreed i think the debtor also relied on the trustee which is that which is a good thing usually you can rely on the trustee not to make an argument that's absolutely i mean there were two arguments it was the didn't sign the document argument wrong and two arguments that were just flat out dead wrong and that's unusual it's very unusual for time to brief an issue but i think the issue here then a five to brief was incorrect because he didn't understand the nature the full nature of the argument you're over the debt limit and i think he was thinking that the issue would have been resolved at the beginning of the case in the sense that the nd would been stripped off for does count for the debt limit and obviously it does but i think that's what he grasped when i look at what he said and the response to the judge which was essentially no lose on that issue and so she didn't give him time to set it over one more time for that to be brief i don't think he grasped that it was the i r s that had been counted twice i think he was thinking of you file a case and you want to strip off a lien well that lead counts as of the day you filed the case but i think there was some confusion on his part when he asked for time to brief but isn't the important point that he did naquin yes the that is the important point he did not acquiesce he did not say all day you win here we are seventy your something like that but if you have a motion on and your number for food we go right to the top this is on for just confirmation that was and i think so yes it was just confirmation i mean that's part of the point too is that there was no motion there were no motions but it was an way well that's the flavor not yeah it's one of my favorite flavor so when it comes to arguing i was tend to go there mauling cases one of my favorite