she made a decision to issue a foreclosure to fix it so that's still pending right now so no decision has been made on that and i'm going to ask the court here is it feasible to move forward this actual case or should we continue it i can i can go and argue at this documentation and i missed the payment when i provided a check that stated they told me i missed the september th two thousand and eleven payment that was a promise is for this whole collection activity that's when it started when i submitted the check not an argument  chapter thirteen bankruptcy filled the following type of opposition the course states that i'm a bad example all i did was follow proper paperwork gave it to my attorney and their attorney was the one that submitted all the documentation bankruptcy you know you put your faith and trust in an attorney and you hope and they do the right thing but having said that you know in the case of rightfully dismissed because it all of the errors that that was actually found there which i was surprised by are back from the chapter seven bankruptcy and at this point if the judge will look at the whole totality i think no sanctions would have been done at this point it should have been done because a case of this missed well that's thirteen i thought we're falling in good faith and at this point you know all i can say is that you know once again this case is the go on for so long and if the judge will look at the original lender in this case was claim on behalf of bank of new york mellon allegedly stating that x number of dollars here but the original lender countrywide stated that there was no standing that the note was never endorsed i mean it's just simple stuff i thought if you look at the totality of everything you know and understand about you know the judge make a decision based on that search after thirteen but if you look at the whole battalion a case from country in the original lender not being able to charge and let the dish acquit him this you know at this point you know so then actually you know foreclose on a property then foreclose on a property but we've still got stuff going on right now your honor so i like a good reserve any question i'm sorry i just point them to rest of you discretion when it imposed sanctions against the appellant it did not the bankruptcy court acted well within its discretion when it imposed the sanctions and this court should have the bankruptcy court thoroughly supported its decision with specific findings of fact and included a detail legal analysis addressing each of the requirements before imposing sanctions and as your honor had mentioned earlier it's important to know what is not on appeal here today is the actual order just missing dismissing the chapter thirteen bankruptcy for bad faith that order was not appealed from there is no challenge to that order and it stands unchallenged today as for the sanctions order the court had two separate and independent bases for issuing sanctions here and had an inherent authority under section one hundred and five dollars of the bankruptcy code and it also had already under the court must make findings that the bankruptcy was filed that it was for the with and also that it was filed for an improper purpose both of those all three of those things were addressed by the bankruptcy court not just in its order dismissing bankruptcy but the court again made those same findings reiterated those same finding after hearing on the motion for sanctions and so both of the both of these rules supported the court order sanctions and personally for that debt so for some background leading up to the bankruptcy filing and the factual history that supported the court's order your original mortgage loan was taken out in two thousand four it was for approximately six hundred and fifteen thousand dollars from at countrywide with the original lender a few years later in two thousand and seven is when appellant the original chapter seven bankruptcy and received his personal discharge in two thousand and eight also in two thousand and eight a parent entered into a stipulation with the original lender countrywide or its successors that the automatic stay w without the bank or posing however almost immediately after entering into that one modification agreement appellant defaulted on the loan it was not just a single payment in september of two thousand and eleven that was missed it was september two mediation program and under that program he was granted four separate mediations with the bank of new york mellon or its services or at the time of those four mediations none of them resulted in any resolution between the parties no settlement agreement was reached and after the th mediation the state court denied a request to appeal and had requested that the  i think of new york mellon as request for a certificate allowing it to form posed and the court deny that granted bank of new york mellon a certificate to allow it to go forward with its foreclosure sale yeah certificate to foreclose and so when that happens they have to start over with a new notice of default and give helen gets another chance at mediation after the th mediation the court told it and the court said issue a statement to the program saying i think that a certificate should issue i think a certificate should not issue and depending on which side you were on if either party disagreed with the mediator they could  all of that was established the history that you're just giving us is the base of the recitals by the bankruptcy court when it made the determination to dismiss the case for bat and i think judge taylor was trying to get it as we're bound by those facts he reiterated that as the basis for the imposition of sanctions so that he would make sure that he covered himself with regard to why he decided to do it but we don't need to revisit all of those or but i think the record clearly reflect that he considered and found all those things based on either documents that were presented testimony that was provided there's a full support for all of the ticket or find it so what it comes down is if there is a basis with the amount that was awarded reasonable under the circumstances and maybe you could discuss the amount that was awarded was it something that the bank had asked for was  attorney's fees was it a percentage of something yes the amount that was requested was the actual attorneys fees and costs that were incurred by having to york mellon in response feet supported by the billing records it's demonstrated the time that was committed to the purposes and and the amount of money that was involved in all that was in the record all right yes your honor  the motion had a my declaration was attached to the motion which went through the lodestar factors and also attached our billing records redacted billing records that went through all of the time that was spent and supported  and it was not challenge below the opposition was not focused on the amount of the award and so much is whether the award was appropriate at all so there was really no challenge to the  this and the court did make a specific finding that they were reasonable of the foreclosure just hours after the state court denied the request is when the chapter thirteen bankruptcy petition that the skeletal chapter thirteen bankruptcy protection while the court made the bankruptcy court made numerous  the other issues are still being litigated in the state court but it's not appropriate use of the bankruptcy to use the bankruptcy court to foreclosure when the state court has already made its decision on the request for a sta she talked about the two thousand and eleven modification if you look at the record banking on mellon did modify the loan the actual lender on this modification is b s the home loan servicing that's a whole different issue if the judge looked all i can say on is you know i mean i got so many facts that a bunch of evidence is definitely on my side you know from my attorney not to rebuttal and it is i don't know what to say at this point but the balance that was the twenty to twenty thousand that tourney fees you know is exceptionally high you know my opinion no fee should have been assessed you know the case is just minutes let's move or let's go in handling a district court at that point another point is time that this has been going on and amount of this has been to like forty five services and at this point now maybe twelve years later you know you look at the statue limitations issues but the taking consideration that i've been all right and we will ask the court the deputy to call the last matter