it again when we when we interpret a statute we do we do that in reality because otherwise statute would have huge expanse of meanings and they would capture everything during the time of the chapter thirteen case yes ok isn't that in fact something of a concession but that's at least possible it's it's so unable having no property against which you can enforce it is a reason to disallow some correctable oh it's that's your theory it's an collapsible right but it's so you that they got a judgment and you lost on appeal as to the judgment of judgments correct i'm not saying if they don't have a valid claim a valid claim is not a forcible line where in this case they claimed that they had a secure claim and that arizona law precluded that and so they assigned a plane under penalty of perjury saying that it was secured by real estate and it's not and they knew  decided in your favor and that they're not speed that on appeal correct well it should have been disallowed for that reason so if it's on a forcible for any reason when you when you claim it's not it's in forcible as cured claim and it's not it's it has to be disallowed you have to remember is we now have an issue created the trustee has now asked the court to decide what are we going to do about the secured nature of their claim you know a year later so it creates duplicitous proceedings unnecessary cost for the better and increases increases the cost of bankruptcy and that's a concept she says she never did cheer for endurance will if she could have easily entered an order that just sa shed he entered an order that said it wasn't secure but she should have she should've disallowed to claim they should have filed an amended claim which said it was unsecured and we can't have the issue with rusty now we're going to have to go through the same thing and every day yeah yeah she said she had read was mean that it was not a secure climb right i'm saying is that the law requires that it be disallowed and i cited a case player mortgage want to make sure i understand what you just said you just said if i understand correctly if it's a court rule rules that a claim that is said to be secured is not secured then the court has no the rd is this argument that well read what she said was i don't know if there's a fund of a liberal to take it i think it's in st the barrel as a legal matter but it may not be possible from the state and she's going to that's the difference i understand you think the burden of proof then if it's your run for in the not another but the question is whether she properly applied the burden of proof in the claim objection process and that that may have consequences no authority for his proposition that i may not have a pot of money or i may be judgment proof as to this creditor why the claim should be disallowed is also set forth  he claims determined to be unsecured or not that leads to a complete disallowance of the claim simply means that it's disallowed is the secured claim which as the court has recognized here today was not appealed by the city a debatable issue based on arizona law we did not cross appeal we have not raised that is an issue so that's decision the only decision that judge martin made in the court was in fact that the city's claim was jurek yes if if it's there can be a combination of claims in the way i under in read that case and interpret that's kind of the subtle law if in fact it was a reimbursement that he recovered for a community expenditure that portion of the claim would be a community asset for example if a plaintiff recovered medical bills or damages to fix a community vehicle as a result of an accident that would be a community asset however injuries that are purely personal to the plaintiff such as emotional damages pain and suffering loss of consortium of those nature are under arizona law separate assets so there's clearly that blows the debtor's argument out of the water that he's judgment proof in the sense that and i'm thinking back now to the previous argument where i don't want to say this is a substantial claim because we're defending those claims at the same time claims are all assets of the bankruptcy estate there's not only is there the potential of mr stewart coming into possession of assets that could be even if the judge martin were  assets of his bankruptcy estate those would potentially be separate property that would be used to pay the city's judgments which are not disputed mr stuart has not disputed them so if we circle back to the issue  enforceability i think the court is well on to this what mr stewart is confusing is some procedural impenitent to the case of the claims being forced for example this is not the case but in arizona judgment expires after ten years if you don't really recorded or take action against it so we had a situation where we had a dated judgment mr stewart might have an argument that this claim is not and property of the debtor what the intent there was to address the situation as the court is probably well aware there are situations where a debtor may have an interest in property and there is some type of untypically in a real estate context where a claim against that particular asset real estate wise is not enforceable personally against the debtor because the debtor basically took that claim by acquiring the property subject to it for example if there were a lien against property in the debtor where to purchase that property the underlying debt of that lien would necessarily be enforceable against the debtor himself but it would be enforceable against the money statute that means if it's purchase money you get it from the property and never from the debtor so i'm aware that there are circumstances where you can't there is no personal liability this would not be one of them the correct you are  don't know the answer but in normal life when you meant your complaint in a court that becomes the operative thing so you would potentially lose your rights to argue that no judge martin made the decision the wrong way and unsecured we believe that you know the law the case for lack of the better word and we do concede that as of you know for planned confirmation purposes assuming mr stewart continues to diligently pursue his his bankruptcy plan confirmation that will proceed under the auspices that the city's claim is allowable but not secured and and then will join the battle as to paraphrase with the other issues that judge martin hasn't determined yet such as  whether the community property is subject to satisfy the city's judgments or not interpreted statutes and when a natural reading of the statute least or rational common sense results and alteration of meaning is not only asserted but extrajudicial so you're altering the plain meaning of the words  not me let me just stop you there and say i'm a big believer in plain language but here you have to read the plain language in the context of the entire statute and also take into consideration that we're in a legal context someone a legal right why is that not an entirely reasonable way to interpret this and not to know not to and graft into this e do you agree a property of the estate the chapter thirteen case this is a chapter thirteen cases not property the estate includes all property that of the type that would be part of state to sue to pay claims that can be paid from the property if that's what your question is i'm not sure i feel like you're sort of bullying me here what you're asking i don't think you're a session you know i didn't raise i'm not but that's not the she here the issue is can it be enforced against what currently exists so what you what your what what the city is arguing as we can enforce this against something that doesn't exist may never  objection proceed and there's you if you if you give delve into the reactor and to into the hypothetical assets then you then every single judgment would be allowed under under bankruptcy law but now i'm in a situation where i retained an attorney he said here's a ruling you're going to have to have these two classes to make payments even though there's only eleven dollars kind of property is only community property there's only earnings of my wife and myself it's because then you know they may be able to amend it for a lot of reasons but not simply because you bring new assets into the a state that's troubling to me i'm saying very simply under all right but so far the next matter