see good morning i believe it still is your honors and may please the court even before the court today is a question of law based on a small set of undisputed facts mrs bird had a debt to security administration which may strike you as a bit peculiar how is it that someone has a debt to the security ministration when usually they receive benefits from that organization and that's because in this case  repay that amount to a certain amount per month but then runs into hard times again for bankruptcy so it's an interesting juxtaposition between news those two areas of law the second point of background that i want to make sure is clear is here we have a debtor asserting a bankruptcy code section five fifty three right under five twenty two the reason why that's important is five fifty three generally refers to a  creditors making sure that they don't happen often they don't unfairly if you want to put it out way they can offset when and that presumably would be problematic for for other creditors that's not true in the section five fifty three is just about creditors versus other creditors and that's that's not true here because it's a burgas was is and was receiving so scurvy benefits so she she's looking to receive these benefits for self argument comes down to two core things first of all i'm sorry first the issue the issue is what what really happened when did so security administration take a set off in this case now the facts are pretty straightforward mrs bird apply for benefits then the so security administration awarded benefits after a statutory leave required mandatory waiting time  about six i think it's six five or six months after five months and then it's paid in arrears that decision was made in a letter it's pretty clear that it's july thirtieth two thousand and fourteen and in that letter it said you're getting these benefits debt to me we're going to take that as a set off and give you the balance it was about nine hundred dollars so the question is whether they can do that kind of so security administration take a take that set off section five fifty thr bankruptcy code says you can't improve your position within ninety days and that letter was was issued within ninety days of the thank you filing so how is it bad that we have a different position what's the so security administration's position in this case my reading of it is and i think they would be able to say it themselves if they were when it's their turn but my reading of it is  there's six months yes and you have to wait until the end of that six months until you get any of those benefits yes however in some sense week we can go back and calculate it we can go back and calculate how much in some sense you got in the first month second third fourth fifth sixth and therefore we can cut it in half it's not the fact that the letter occurred within ninety days we can we can say when when you in some hypothetical would have been entitled to those benefits just in case you're unaware so security administration benefits are paid monthly that's why the monthly is there  there's no other time at which one could even take a look look at it this way if you're sitting in mrs burr position or even a independent third party position on july twenty ninth twenty fourteen i'm sorry only to take an offset if based on equity and good conscience so soon so the so security administration has a decision to make should it do this or not they decided to do that in  letter july thirtieth twenty fourteen the bankruptcy filing was was i believe it was the very next month certainly within ninety days  looking at the issue another way when did mrs verb's right to the so security of ministers and benefits one of those accrue when did she actually get that's what the statute is pretty clear again you need to wait a certain period of time you need to wait at least your five or six months and actually have to do something but just looking at the statute you have to wait that period of time i'm sure the so security administration saves a good deal of money and not having to pay claims for people who passed away during that time for people who are no longer disabled at the expiration of a vat if you're only disabled for three months you're not entitled to benefits that's a good policy but that means in this case that the approval occurred i'm sorry the benefits weren't do until the statute said they were due and it's on top of the fact that you have to wait letter both awarded the benefits here's your intitled to just about twenty thousand dollars with back benefits and we're going to take the offer so there might be an interesting different case when those happen in different times or more to life but here it's very clear in the letter gives us about that clarity if in no questions i'll reserve the balance of my time for  the issue is not when s s a took the us at the key issue first is the extent to which the comprehensive scheme of the social security act which is the governing back and non bankruptcy law in this case controls the the other point is that the code or the social security act governs the fact of the overpayment the fact of that s s a it's concluded that it could not waive recovery o overpayment it establishes if there is duty to recover the overpayment it establishes the date of disability determination of the benefits and as as mr hanson pointed out the waiting period and when entitlement to benefits begin to accrue there is one thing that i would like to point is that for that mr hanson said that as i can only take it off set based on equity and good conscience that is wrong as a matter of law the social security act is such an arm for all four states that when ever as i say discovers that there is an overpayment then the agency shall recover by withholding benefits and the benefits to which the person may be entitled the person may that ask the agency to waive the benefit and the benefit could only be if the agency could only agree to waive if the person is not at fault it would not defeat the purpose of the at and it is against equity and conscience that does not apply in this case that the offset is mandatory you could you finish i'm sorry i interrupted you no that's i've in this instance the bankruptcy code itself recognizes that a claim does not come into existence when it is paid out is a very broad definition so the claim needs a right to payment whether or not it's reduced to judgement even if it is on liquidated contingent just or disputed and in this instance the social security act establishes when the claim a rose and not when it was when it was paid but when it a rolls that a person who has worked long enough and paid taxes into the system shall be entitled to a disability insurance benefit benefit for each month beginning with the first month after the waiting period so in this instance s s a determine d that mr byrd became disabled for a second time in november of two thousand and twelve her five month waiting period was over after april which means her first month of entitlement to benefits was may  thirteen she has to survive to the end of the month to be entitled to benefits so her right to benefit as the july letter show and s s a's right to offset with the existing over overpayment similarly continued reduced by payments that bird made until as i say determined that she was disabled again beginning and entitle to benefits beginning in and thirteen can you help me with this certainly indication in the record why the trustee did not pursue this amount to distribute to creditors i assume i mean i'm as a potential income that was exempt under the code so if she never actually listed it as a as a debt in her  reply brief byrd argued that there are cases under contract law or tax law provide an appropriate analogy to this case but then again that ignores the fact that the bankruptcy co section five thirty three does not create set off right it preserves the existing set of rights under applicable non bankruptcy law which in this case again is the comprehensive scheme of the social security act then the governing non bankruptcy car law would be the internal revenue code and also in fact the cases that that site support s s a's position because they a real estate transaction whether the question is whether person could offset attorney fees against the purchase price the court ruled that the right to attorney fees accrued two years before the bankruptcy even though the amount of the fees and the offset wasn't actually taken until after the data was discharged the same with the cases of in roselle and right pleasant which are both cats cases which ruled that even though the person claimed their refund after they'd actually filed for bankruptcy it was a preposition but because you look back to the internal revenue code says the claim a rose and the right to offset similarly a rose on december thirty first of the previous year so in this case byrd applied for benefits in march to twenty fourteen s s a applied compassionate a a quick decision process made its determination by july to turn again determine disability which gave a right to benefits and the same time the right to offset a rising in at the end of may two thousand and thirteen the bankruptcy court in this instance correctly recognized that with the monthly a cruel of benefits they get adjusted by at the statute requires by cost of living increases subtracted by payments that as of  bankruptcy court concluded s s a oberg one thousand four hundred forty dollars she owed them nineteen thousand seven hundred eighty five at the beginning of may with the approval of benefits s s a owed berg nineteen thousand r c t seventeen thousand three hundred eighty five dollars and she owed as i say nineteen thousand four hundred insufficiency at that time was two thousand and fifteen dollars by the time s s a sent out the accumulated continue to approve the bankruptcy court can correctly recognize that under the broad definition of claim in the bankruptcy code that her application for benefits and entitle it because she could work long enough at a job that paid into social security created a contingent on liquidated claim dating back to the first month in which she became entitle to benefits and s s a is corresponding right of set off a rose at the same time and that's how they  i'd like to just touch on a handful of things for you fully to make sure that it's clear there was some discussion about the year the facts or are simply stated in the appendix pages seven and eight but we're talking roughly about march to whether or not berg's entitlement to benefits occurred via that letter or whether we should come to be looking backwards should be ignore the statute that says it accrues after five months should we ignore the statements  that you need to survive until the end of the month that counsel just made to answer the question about the trustee to trustee didn't probably didn't pursue this case because they're the trustee for the creditors and if you're not going to get something for the creditors if you're only going after a property that that came in from social good you've got if it's that's not going to be able to go the arguments regarding step tax and statute of limitations cases those are arguing by anal i could see that they're not directly on point but i think that they help give some flesh to this point and it's addressed in our brief but in the it is true that birth became entitle to in some sense  unlikely dated contingent claim if you want to put it that way but but still the statute is very clear that you have to survive until the end so that's when your that's the only time in which you're actually entitled to those