least focused their brief on the just the appropriateness of the dismissal by the district court of the appeal and never touched the underlying merits that we are appealing from the base of support i think that those issues are vitally important because the policy of the southern district of illinois bankruptcy but it was liquidated in the wasn't supposed to if if they know going into it that those assets are going to be lost in the chapter thirteen to the trustee in the force to be used that furthers that's going to even affect the decision whether before us either because that would entail considering this as a direct appeal from the bankruptcy court's decision which we don't have procedurally in front of us the subsequent nine does not following that what i'm saying is an illegal order ultimately resulted in being denied a discharge permanently and his case being dismissed so is this an issue and this judge sykes mentioned at the beginning there still a separate appeal on the dismissal of the bankruptcy before the district court correct yes and i award should be included as disposable income is that an issue that you can raise in the pending appeal before the district court district court not the one that's before us now or you foreclosed from raising that because you didn't object to the plan o in other words to to preserve and maintain a person when appellate challenge to the judgment and adversary proceeding and that turnover proceeding both of which went against you your option was to post a bond in your motion for a stay and then you would have gotten your stay and then you could have litigated the merits of the st appeal but you didn't do that you complied with the court's order so minutes a modified plan subjected the asset to access by the creditor and that was voluntary compliance or not there's nothing more to do there and that was the part of this order which i have yet i have yet to hear addressed i think we've exhausted our questions it's time to move on to miss lo sorry about that good morning in may it please the court my name is mary wells and on i represent the apple e in this case russell simon the chapter thirteen trustee after hearing  the appellant's argument i would st like to point out that i believe that the court's understanding of the procedural status of this case is correct what i would also add to the facts of already been brought up today is that the district or the bankruptcy court also based its decision and i know this gets into the merits a little bit but i think this is an important fact that the some of the funds that the debtor had received about thirty seven thousand dollars of it was used to pay his wife's creditors instead of paying his creditors and fall which would have only taken about half of that and i think that that was the basis for the bankruptcy courts order for the plan adversary proceeding is needed when there is no remaining life controversy and that is exactly what we have here an adversary as a court pointed out judge sites that are didn't of heal the order approving the modified implants that he filed so at that point the issue that was on appeal before the district court became moot because the debtor voluntarily complied with the order of the bankruptcy court there is no more life controversy between the parties as it concerns the adversary action asked for the plan i've cation the german vs powers case provided that the the court has to look at the facts of the situation to determine if it can fashion effect of relief and in this case there is no effective relief that can be fashioned when that order approving the nd modified plan that was filed when that order prove that any went on a became a final order that was no longer subject to consideration by the court that order for that plan complying with the modification that was ordered by the bankruptcy court  circuit recognized that the debtor had what i hadn't paid but paid under protest so to speak because he noted on the check that he submitted to the court that it was being disputed in addition to requesting and having been denied a state of the action when these two plans that were filed these two amended plans that were filed by this that are in response to the bankruptcy court forder none neither one of those plans indicate that the dagger was finally those plans in some sort of dispute or direct with the bankruptcy court the modifications only known in the they were filing the plan in compliance with the court's order of march th two thousand and eighteen so for all intents and purposes the debtor did not indicate any intention to