bit further prejudice means change of position that's materially making somebody materially worse off right that's what you think yes that's that's the douglas what are we were what we're comparing here is not you have no chance of getting paid against you have some chance of getting paid my rd if i get to confirm that everybody has what they stated and do the comparison has a trustee can sell this house tomorrow and pay everybody no question that versus what you're proposing that's the measure right the measure is not you know is it speculative in the sense that i have to go play the stock market the measure is there is a known thing that's going to happen compare what what would have happened in the south which is a definite pan and not every seven is that way right but in this one there is a house it can be sold it can be full without a whole lot of trouble everybody can be paid basically these people you know there are yes this there's no way the court or it seems too speculative the party i mean that's we let's let's pull a couple of things apart ok you're right it would be prejudicial to the who the creditors if the variously no question about that ok they don't have to act variously to create some growth and that's the argument here ok so just i mean the fact that they're nice people and they didn't hide anything i'm pretty sure it doesn't change the question for me let me ask a slightly different question along the same lines which is you're telling us let us dismiss we'll refile will pay  january one the homestead exemption is going to go from where it is today to i don't know when your county and my county six hundred thousand dollars are not going to be any equity and once the case is dismissed there's absolutely no way for the court to control the timing of five lng that isn't something that you did intentionally because that changing the laws new bride is about something we have to consider here that i'm sorry i mean can you know run still free if this case is dismissed can you give a client the legal advice to fire today with the obligation to pay at least thirty thousand dollars and probably more given administrative expenses versus waiting to january won and firing and have been paying member of that i mean i don't know i think that's a bad place to put difficult if i don't advise now i mean not that that's probably not i'm not trying to be unfair here but it's certainly the thought bubble that the minute i read this is how you and i get you almost have to get another attorney and i don't think anybody's opinion here that the judge in the underlying court was pretty thorough in her explanation of what cause once it's instructive in looking at seven o seven a but it's also instruct is the burden to demonstrate cause which the trustee of the debtors failed to do here there's an asset that's available to the chapter seven trustee that would be lost if the case were to be dismissed to find some other option or here which the chapter seven trustee is certainly oh come on closing thought just so we don't get into a sort of a metaphysical discussion of what i think that's also what they talk about in legal prejudice in the kind of the case you need but you're correct ok and it's my concern about the change in the law is that i mean that certainly didn't motivate anything at the time of the decision is that something we should ignore now or is that something that we have to wrestle with it's our intention of course it's so new it's you know there's no case law on that specifically but it is a big issue because like the court aptly pointed out i mean if if if i got the case for the debtor i don't know that i would file you know you have a brand new exemption here yeah girl greatly expanded and i know attorney for the u s department of justice representing the utility united states trustee i think that the corps has identified the legal standard in this case no press to creditors means they are but surely no worse off i don't really think there's any dispute in the record at this point that creditors would be materially worse off if they had to take they had to give up the certainty are almost completely the possibility of a new chapter thirteen which is a court has identified through a previous questioning is highly unlikely in this case indeed it i think mr king would be completely conflicted in it advising the debtors at this point regarding any new chapter thirteen filing and it seems undisputed that they could wait until january and clean the six hundred thousand dollars and this court has reached that issue already in the hall and each case is about what legal rights it did or could claim if the case were dismissed that they could claim in the current case and the results in those cases were bitterly harsh in unfortunate but again this court is is to determine if there is no legal privilege to creditors and certainly there would be if this case were dismissed i think judge kline did all she could do by encouraging the parties to talk with each other and get new financing that would solve this problem he indeed did everything she she could do to prevent any unnecessary harsh consequences to these debtors she could not compel refinancing and the debtors by their own admission weren't interested in doing that and why we don't know but i think that goes into the  legal prejudice standard if debtors are not willing to refinance whether because they can huff or not willing to then that simply bolsters the finding that there would in fact be prejudice to creditors and again the they admitted they could not pay the chapter thirteen dollars point on their required payment twenty five thousand dollars over five years they were four years into that plan and they simply can't do it anymore right now by everyone's admission they would all thirty thousand dollars because of the equity in the res then could they propose even if we assume that they could be relied upon to file new chapter thirteen which we don't because is the facts here they've already said they can't they can't repay that now they can repay a lesser amount much less the thirty thousand  with no well i mean nobody has to make anything approaching a finding about the not to find those projects right i mean there's prejudice in the fact that there's another five year period during which goodness knows what can happen things could go wrong in the plan simply isn't completed absolutely your honor no i mean there's not more when george klein was saying as opposed to well they're never going to confirm this plan we agree ok there was no i don't to i'm a little because i don't want to overstate it on the one hand i'm a little bit concerned that your presence here in the cage you're hoping for some more swashbuckling you know ruling that this case requires this result so if you're looking for something doctrinal i'm i'm not sure i'm hearing it in the st place and i you know i'm not sure how much we should how much more we should make of this we need to resolve this case you know clarify that for me if you need to i don't think we need to we leave out these facts the court made the right something i mean something beyond just a promise i think you would say would have to be something equally substantial to exist an undisputed equity in the home of a mobile phone or liquidation korat absolute know that that opportunity is not for closed even as we stand here today the trustee has been extremely patient with these debtors as well as judge klein i mean essentially every one of those cases encourage these directors to solve this problem in a manner be a refinance of the same property which which monetize is that equity it could be an unsecured round that the daughter gets and it could be a loan the daughter close signs on it could be you know that would improve the chances of getting this result particularly because your clients are not ad people who did bad things but you know i my heart goes out to them but we have to apply the law as it's written