i am not going to claim that this is a simple case for you to decide because it is from what we can best tell the matter of first impression well then let me ask you this question should we certify this issue to the pennsylvania my understanding is that that would be an exercise in futility because the practice has been for the pennsylvania supreme court to return those certification requests well that's not necessarily true i mean they have a i don't know we traveled here from erie to argue the matter substantively and it's not some you thought too much it's not so it's not something that i get a lot of consideration to that's fine well it all started out i thought you were going to say it all depends on whether we're going to rule your way fee owner of the property in question but yet is acting as though they have been insurable interest in the property and we're dealing with the statute that we believe very clearly talks about what is supposed to happen with the fire loss policy we do believe that the language of the statute is extraordinarily clear and that there is no ambiguity to be found in this in this legislation certainly with regard to the fact pattern that is before you at this point in time the purpose of the statute is very simply to protect municipalities when you have a situation where there are unpaid taxes and where there is a an insurance policy that covers buildings on the parcel and there's a fire it's a very is a very very specific set of circumstances here if there is a fire loss and somebody is going to claim insurance proceeds on that fire they have to go the insurance company has to go well that's right that's the issue that was raised by the district court is not an issue that was raised by park restoration the apple e in this matter it is not an issue that was raised before the bankruptcy court and it really was an issue that was raised on appeal to the district court our position is that that one use race before us they have raised it before you i don't know there was properly preserved but it is before you well we have to deal with it because the district court latched on  russia in this instance the issue of the insured property owner versus named insured simply doesn't come into play because if you follow the statute if you follow the statute we go to be one to and bill showing the amount of the delinquent taxes assessment penalties and user user charges against the property and that's simply says that upon receipt of her certificate and a bill pursuant to the clause one two of this subsection the insurance company association or exchange shall return the bill to the treasurer and transfer the treasurer transfer to the treasurer of the amount and amount from the insurance proceeds necessary to pay the taxes assessments penalties etc as shown on the bill the municipality shall receive the amount and apply or credited to payment of the item shown in the bill so we never touch the phrase insured property owner it is not a political in this circumstance if there is a certificate however that is issued under b one small roman numeral one then you go to be too small roman numeral one and that's the section that talks about an insured property owner everything else throughout the entire statute is named insured from b to one applies when there are no delays or taxes owed on the probably right but interest it's the vice versa your property professor would be surprised to hear that we're not taking the lease your honor but a lease is a property interest they hadn't they had a lease hold they did have a lease hold but we're not talking about the lease we're talking about insurance proceeds because it's a contract interest because it's that you're distinguishing it from a property interest from a contract and i am and then the case law does as well this this court house this court has repeatedly held that that it's that it's not it's not enough to say that you have a contractual interest in order to say that it's incredibly common really any tax seems like the upshot of your case is that you know they didn't do their due diligence when they signed the lease and when they got insurance on the  property on the beach club because if they had done their homework they would have seen that the the township that the owner of the main parcel of land wasn't paying taxes for a long well i think that they that that would have been apparent anybody who did any type of insurance to get right they went in and they got insurance on the building and they went in and they got insurance on the contents of the building six hundred eleven thousand dollars of insurance on the building money we're not we're not going after the hundred thousand dollars for the contents right they have a specific line item on the insurance policy one hundred thousand dollars for the contents it was six hundred eleven thousand dollars for the building they owed four hundred well hundred seventy eight thousand dollars in taxes we get four hundred seventy eight thousand dollars out of that six hundred eleven thousand and you saying that's the distinction between contents and building is consistent with the purpose of the statute which is to avoid blight and problems with property where the owners allow them to fall into disrepair don't pay their taxes and then the all one of the one of the underlying claims in the in the action before the court of common pleas in which the trustees were also a defendant as part of the reason why i got sucked up into the bankruptcy was because there was a claim of unjust enrichment by park restoration against the trustees and i think that they could still submit a claim against the trustees against the bankrupt estate at this point in time for an unsecured claim but we're not talking about and we're not to somebody i don't know that i don't know that it's necessarily a windfall unless you're going to say that everybody if we assume that everybody will therefore collect one hundred percent on their obligations you know due to them from the park then perhaps you could call it that but if you're talking about people who are still it may please the court my name is john meissner from erie pennsylvania and i represent park restoration i'd like to start where i believe the last question was is a so windfall for the trust yes it is in this court can take judicial notice because these lots of connie like park have been sold and i just got a bankruptcy filing two days ago that most of the money that my client paid for insurance policy proceeds own by my wife and insurance property proceeds  they're going to give back to the trustees four hundred seventy eight thousand dollars so this is certainly a windfall for the trustees because the trustees were responsible under two different mortgages and loans to maintain insurance on this property and they felt you so the attorney should we think put it on those why can't we think you will because the public the bankruptcy record and these are docket entries on the record that show where the properties were sold and where the money has gone the properties in the fifty five acres absolutely are i believe so far five of them have been sold they're selling for three hundred thousand dollars apiece that's beautiful they are mean and  that's why we have this predicament there was a could you be protected mr miser if if this plays out as you suggest and i have no reason to question you know one way or the other on that but it sounds like something that would be fit for a constructive trust or i mean this sounds like something that falls into the realm of fraudulent transfer or and i don't mean to imply that it was intentionally fraudulent but the circumstances as they have occurred just described by you would indicate you know equity would cry out for your client to be able to keep the proceeds yes bill even if even if we were to find that the state statute requires that the proceeds not be paid as you wish that may well be but at what time and at what cost and why should we have to do that because the statute is in big us and if i could demonstrate how is that for the bankruptcy yes i did your honor now let me be clear i did not  yes yes in fact the bankruptcy court makes very clear that i raise it place of argues that allowing the taxing authorities to pay their unpaid taxes from the insurance policy results of a gratuitous confiscation that's not the section i wanted to i thought the battleground there was that it was a taking well let me read from the court's opinion on page eight it says the plaintiff contends that the state statute applies solely to those situations where the feet owner of the property is the insured and where the tax liabilities at issue are the fine the actual responsibility of the owner as in the first instance is the primary for primary financial responsibility of some party other than the name insured so the we had raised from the very beginning that there's three principles of law that override this whole discussion number one individuals are generally not responsible for the deaths of others and that's the result of this case if second that the property taxes are the responsibility of the property tax or they run with the land that's why you lean the land that's why when the land to sold the lien on the land is paid first and third if you're going to force your responsibility to me it must be clear unequivocal and put me on notice that i am accepting the financial responsibility of this to link with taxpayer none of that none of that is present here well you're not accepting though i mean their argument is that the insurance company is required to pay the way when taxes in case of a fire before painting me insure that's what state law seems the clearly require doesn't and i would respectfully disagree that it clearly says that you are the statutes in big us in this is why if we look at b one it says we've got to give you a certificate says number one you've got no taxes be one double i says or a certificate showing that there's a link with taxes and the amount and here's where you really got to focus be in violation of two rules of instruction number one all sections of a statute must be read together so they say i want you to forget what the comes before what becomes after they're just saying that that's that's i think a little bit exaggerated as i understand their argument there seem to be two one just doesn't appeal to i doesn't apply because b to i applies when there are no delinquent taxes owed what he's saying is correct that that's what applies but what we're trying to ascertain is what was the legislature intending when it used the terms name insured and insured property or and i think what it does  to i apply when there are the liquid taxes owed or are they correct the b two are applies only when there are no delinquent taxes they are correct to spawn that application yes you are right then but what i'm saying is you can't just pool that one little part subsection of the statute out weird but if but but if that subsection is inapplicable then your your definitional argument about the usage of named insured and insure a property owner falls by the wayside does it not as far as i can tell insure property owner is only mentioned one time and it's mentioned in that subsection that they claim is you now yes but you you can't just leave it to that subsection insured property owner clearly also applies to the word game insured c n d yeah i understand that's not the section we're working with your today but we are trying to ascertain legislative and tech and what was the legislature trying to do and one of the presumptions that we have is that the legislature would not intend to violate the united states or the state constitution and once there was a loss we had a vested property right well why isn't  contractual right i mean obviously i'm with you you heard me challenging opposing counsel about the lease i mean that you you had a property right yet a lease hold interest right but his response as i understood it was yeah they had a lease but here we're fighting over insurance proceeds and park restorations right to insurance proceeds was strictly a contractual right click the insurance company only he had by virtue of that insurance contract was he wrong on that here's where it is wrong that contract says that we are taking this policy subject to the loss one of the laws of this commonwealth th individuals are not responsible for the debts of others that the property taxes are the responsibility of the property or and that if you want to take your responsibility and put on my sure's that must be clear express i know what i'm doing and the only way to read pennsylvania law in this statute consistently is to say what the legislature intended is that when the insured property owner only rate way to read the statute consistent with the legislative history which is three different times beginning with a sponsor and two supporters what do they all say poor one property owners to have blighted properties and collecting her back all right but here's here's something that that quite honestly give me pause in your brief you seem to limit that legislative intent about preventing blighted property owners of blighted properties from collect taking the money and run right basically if that's what they're why doesn't that rational apply equally to lease holders who take the money and run because we don't have the obligation to repair the property to keep it safe to pay the taxes those are the responsibilities or somebody else is yet as i was digging into the legislative had that responsibility  interruption policy here you get a life that may well have been the case but the issue before us is the construction of the statute and how the legislature intended this statute to work  find the case if you want me to look for it but it's here ok ok the moment there is the fire we have of that's arse that is when the insurance proceeds that's the last the argument that has always been made by the appellants is that you for taking this policy subject to pennsylvania law this is pennsylvania law therefore you had no property interest and i say that that number one assumes that there is a reasonable interpretation of the statute but when the policy says it conforms to the laws of the common law that means also the laws that say the property owners responsible for the property taxes that individual is not responsible for the debts of another and if you want to make me responsible it must be clear in explicit so i understand the nature of my undertaking none of of which is present here respectfully i believe the district court properly hailed the statute is him big us the legislature intended to read the terms insured mange insur and insured property owner interchangeably and the insurance proceeds that we pay for that are ours at of the airplane of a court should be awarded to us thank you very much i  accurate the part this accurate is that three parcels have sold for i believe approximately six hundred fifty thousand dollars and that money has gone to the taxing authorities on their lien the claim the allowed claim was i think four million two and there are still plenty what's that sir but a lot of it there's a confirmed plan in the bankruptcy area so the claim of the taxing bodies the total claim the taxing bodies including taxes that have accru and equitable lean or constructive trust could be placed on these and fire insurance proceeds and then distributed to the policyholders your honor i cannot presume to speak for the debtor i don't know their total structure in terms of the plan and who else knows or who else is owed money on the plan and i certainly can't speak for judge teller in terms of what he would be willing to approve for the bankruptcy court all i know is that the money if it gets paid to us will go to it will go to relieve the liens that our clients have on the property there are still others means on the property that will have to be satisfied as part of the plan see no issue with that because you now raise the point that there is a one point two million dollar tax bill do that property which doesn't make sense that your honor i don't i don't know what the course protocol on this pressure you raise that with regard to whether or not the issue had been preserved in the bankruptcy court then attorney miser pointed you to a footnote that i think that any reasonable reading of it would be a stretch to say that he had properly raise the argument at that point in time the first time that anything really appears is in the brief that was submitted by park restoration to the district court and at page twelve of the applebee's grief to the district court they wrote indeed one part of the statute though not directly a political here appears to use the terms named insured and insured property owner interchange they've acknowledged the fact in court in writing that the section that they are talking about doesn't apply to what we're dealing with here again this is this is this is a a view of the world that says that if there is an ambiguity in one part of the statute the entire standard fails as ambiguous and i don't think that that is a correction reading of the law under either state or federal principles  judge fisher about a year or so ago maybe two years ago you authored an opinion in vice and or community medical center versus the secretary united states h h s as seven ninety four if there are three eighty three and there you indicated that a provision is ambiguous only when the disputed language is reasonably susceptible of different interpretations now in this particular instance the sections that we rely on only use the that i'm saying that you can have an ambiguity in a statute that doesn't affect the statute as a whole or the pluck ability or of another section of the statute well you can read the statute as a whole and you can say ok if we are in a situation where the certification is issued that there are no delinquent property taxes then we reach this other section that talks about insured property owner and then we have to address the ambiguity but here we're talking about a situation in which the the search if it is issued that there are property taxes do we skip over this section with the ambiguity and we go to the other section can we can give effect to that aspect of the ns one thing just use it as it is useful and well in this instance the the issue was the issue was a federal statute and federal regulations being interpreted as opposed to state but i think that the princip still holds that you can have a provision of a statute that is unambiguous and you can have another provision of the same statute that is ambiguous theoretically and you can say that ok i can give effect to this portion of the statute because you're saying that you can you can have tickler view of this section that could be at odds with this other section that to me radically makes sense but when you're talking about  that i think that you can have if you can have different words used in different parts of the statute and mean different things without affecting the use of a perm in another portion so if the if the if the phrase insured property owner is used here and then throughout the statute throughout the remainder of the statute they use the name name that they use the term named insured i don't think that you can automatically say that insured property owner is used interchangeably with named in short i don't think that that that that's the case and if i misunderstand your question i apologize but else i did just want to make one observation with regard to the overarching legal principles that that attorney meisner referred to as as a practical matter and he starts off with the proposition that we're not responsible for the deaths of others that may in fact be an overarching legal principle in the commonwealth of pennsylvania and in federal jurisprudence as well however common law principles are subject to change by statute and i think in this particular instance with regard to this particular contractual right the commonwealth of pennsylvania the general assembly has spoken and said we want these insurance proceeds to be first subject to the payment of taxes and then they go to others so whatever whatever problem or principle he relies on it's a red herring in this situation because the general assembly has abrogated that common law principle in favor of the idea of protecting the actively involved with the bankruptcy proceeding there's a confirmed plan the first claim in that plan belongs to the taxing authorities it's an agreed upon approved claim for one point two million dollars and that's on forty separate different parcels which include the beachfront property that's that that's why it's at one point two million dollars that it's thirty nine other parcels plus the beachfront property ok right down the daisy chain right through the windfall of secured creditors and maybe twenty years from now there'll be some payment to unsecured creditors which they would have if they had filed a proof of claim but they didn't even file proof a cla so it's not a windfall it at all it's a court approved and still having said that if you would if you was a bit we will within five days a simitian on that then not to exceed five pages we'll be very happy to do