a home equity line of where credit mortgage held by regions bank is boy she claimed her adversary proceeding that that home equity line of credit mortgage should be held void under section five zero six d the bankruptcy code the bankruptcy judge decided that misconduct not entitled to a hearing on that claim because she had no standing to bring that claim standing is governing standing under five o six d is actually governed by by vote to aid of the bankruptcy code which entitle any party in interest to object to the allowance of a claim the filed by a credit and party in the interest is an undefined term in the bankruptcy code ms kahn is a bankrupt there was certainly a party she was claiming an interest an exemption interest in her home in her no you know a homestead exemption under the bankruptcy code in titles the debtor is part of her fresh start that's the policy the bankruptcy code is part of her fresh start she gets the minimal assets back from the trying to have the mortgage that declares that this homestead exemption is waived she's trying to have that declared void under section five zero six deed of the bankruptcy co and under the the way these bankruptcy code provisions work together that that mortgage is void if we just banks claim against ms  is if it's not voided and the five zero six d and that's what we're we want to hearing and that's what we've been hearing all we want to have a hearing on the issue of whether or not this mortgage is boyd or wait under five o six deep and we respect we still know whether or not it's void according to you will affect whether she gets the twenty five thousand dollars or not yes but will it and it will or like to continue living in yes if it's a boy she gets that live in her house if the property is sold in bankruptcy i doubt it will be put up so she gets twenty five thousand dollars before any creditors call things you know and if it's void she gets her property and it's not we're not claiming the third party right third party standing of the trustee in bankruptcy the exemption from the bankruptcy estate is mis mon's own property it's first property is subtracted from the estate and goes back to the debtor right but that does it seems like that wouldn't give her the right to litigate various aspects of how much money is in the estate that is the trustee th the that the that the trustee would be able to challenge no no it was her son different because it gives her standing to object to the claim of one creditor that  her home and against property she had already requested in the exemption for she had all right in her petition she requested a homestead exemption for her property her home and  got it actually under supreme court precedent she actually got the exemption because the time went by without an objection so allegiance bank comes in and bylaws that proof a claim saying wait a minute we have a lien on this  home home and this lien this mortgage waived the exemption so we get it and we have a right to have a hearing on that under five hundred two that's our exemption we want we have a right to have a hearing on it she's a party in interest to that claim she's a party of interest to the objection to the claim because how the objection is ruled on will affect her rights our right to live her home  know from the tennessee bar it's good to be back in the sixth circuit i realize the last time i was here my son was graduating from high school and he came in washed and he's just graduated from college so it's amazing how here it's like damn goes  let me correct we have filed a brief that i think clearly delineates the legal position this case comes to the court in but i want to start by trying to address some of the by saying that he was trying to challenge his purpose here is to challenge under section five zero six the lean of my client regions by first point and he didn't reference butt out but is referenced in the don't think it's referenced in the district court opinion but if the court goes back and looks at the bankruptcy judge's opinion there's a case cited which is the it's a six circuit case that follows dusun the simoneau supreme court case that talks about chapter seven standing whether that chapter seven debtor has certain types of standing and in in t t the sixth circuit specifically rejected the argument that a chapter seven debtor made use of six d to strip off a lane of region to bank first answer second point is that he appears to be and i didn't really realize it till this argument today trying to relive again in federal bankruptcy court an issue that has that is in the state of being but on resolved unresolved that's exactly right back homestead property of homestead is a car while it is true that a debtor may choose to exercise a homestead exemption but as we pointed out in their brief and is judge steyer went to great lengths to discuss demonstrate that to the trustee so the trustee will know whether to how to handle that whether to pursue the client to abandon the property whatever we did that that's all that has happened well how will that issue that he says there's a occurred when he sued us claiming that there had been improprieties in terms of the loan documents we prevailed in the arbitration and the arbitrator awarded spam but there was no when we got the when we when we got the notice from the press food and under the loan documents the attorney fees become a klein a lane against the property so when i got the notice from the press b i found the proof of klein's explaining the situation that in so far as there was an underlying note that had been assigned that was someone else's klein but we had a  right doesn't seem to understand is and but the district judge focused on is she has not suffered an injury there must be a peculiar your financial loss in order for a party to have to appeal to anybody says that her injury is having a lien on the house that she's going to continue to live that's why that's what he claims the interest is but but that w answer well the answer is that's going to get litigated the answer is she that does not cause the trustee now how is he going to litigate some concern having to do with whether she can stay in her house but see that that's that's a red herring he could well k i just want know the answer he's not going to would litigate it so why would he litigate it with it increased the size of the state if he litigated it successfully there's no evidence that that's another crucial issue there's no evidence to think that the banks and work third lean in and schedules if she valued the property as one hundred eighty thousand she's got a first mortgage of something like one hundred that she's reaffirmed at one hundred forty there's another forty in a second that was assign am proof a claim was for approximately fifty so this property he's never going to sell it because if he did excluding the administrative costs he's never going to be able to recover anything to pay the administrative c well i think the other point mr ray sings to be getting at is well maybe in the future there will be a foreclosure you know maybe in the future and then i'd be injured but it's another question of r rot to stay in it the trustee is the one with control of the property if he did decide to make decision to sell it which is would be completely illogical at that  sale and if she has their way so if he were to sell it if he were selling and if he were to be able to pay off the first in the second and the minister at a cost then she would get least one of them from judge they are that's one of that makes this a red herring is it only comes into a fig e f and when the properties ever sold and it only she only gets the money in it it's different probably different under different other state statutes that have different exemption laws but in tennessee unless there's equity the secured creditors get paid so that's another reason she doesn't have standing this a five hundred thousand dollars in liabilities and two hundred thousand dollars in assets but it's all in secure it's all unsecured debt and the trustee were to say i'm going to sell this property well  because arnold secured she would get to keep the top twenty five thousand under going to the statutes there's a normal five thousand but if you have amount of children that she does she gets to keep the twenty five he sells that pays the measure of cough she keeps the twenty five thousand to help in her pressure or they can still sell out yes exactly she choose to for counsel suggest that somehow she has this super a priority right to keep her house where there's a enforce that language that's correct but you could we could have the under the under the notice from the bankruptcy court there is a schedule given that describes the date that she gets a discharge which she's already gotten she personally been discharged there's a deadline to object to exemptions she put her homestead exemption in that and there was no objection filed by any creditor so we could have probably i said i'm not to and i would be misrepresenting the quarterback suggest that i was an expert bank lawyer but there are a number of cases in which you'll see that the issue has come up in fact i think some of the cases that deal that i reference that the from judge they are that deal with the the requirement that there be equity is that a very situation how different is the question of whether the district court had appellate jurisdiction from the question of whether there was standing before the bankruptcy court i think that's a significant question the course of the cases are party to challenge the bankruptcy court's decision if the bankruptcy courts order or judgment affected them peculiarly so so that inquiry would say is the same as think worry as to whether they are they have standing so all these arguments you've been making here would also support the argument that there's no appellate standing or that arguments different i think they're a little i think they're a little different well how are they different well appellate standing  bankruptcy court standing is discussed in terms of being a part of in interest ryan and typically chapter seven debtors are not parties and interest unless there are plus appellate standing is only if all he said was i'm not going to i'm not going to let her challenge this proof of point with the banks file that's all and the trustee could still come in and challenge it at a later point you know but the crucial thing is he didn't he is did he didn't order the judgment against her he didn't reduce anything he simply said she's not the one to make this challenge the challenge is for the the ok thank you do you agree that we have to address the a fellow jurisdiction issue be theoretically first before we address the standing in the bankruptcy judge or very complicated question your honor but i'll just if you're not i think what mr kelly has forgotten when stands up here in accuses me of misrepresenting facts what he has forgotten is that we filed a complaint in the complaint in this case it was challenge on the basis of  account what one attorney says i understand and i thin you're in a but i mean let me ask you this then is it if i understand the argument of your opposing counsel the homestead exemption does not apply to but it's not the right word if it if the if the secured debt is greater than the value of the house if that's possible then there's no possibility of getting that twenty five thousand psi correct interested in that to the second mortgage is the one we're challenging but the second more he did he sat there that is that the attorney's fees you know well the second mortgages for both attorney fees now and for the underlying forty thousand dollar claim that we say is invalid also in the in the loan procedures that your chest said that those two debts are invalid debts that they should be disallowed but they weren't and you're already