submitted the issue before this court today involves an interplay between a collection lawsuit brought by want to guess credit union based in saginaw michigan and the defendant's banker and has an interesting fact i'm from staten it was properly served upon the employer of the defendant and eventually the defendant's wages were levied a prime the wages in the amount of eight hundred and eighty four dollars  thirteen cents were transferred to shop law offices prior to the debtor and this case ellie filing a chapter seven bankruptcy on november th two thousand and eighteen now i think it's important the date that the dollars and fourteen cents the nd check was dated october th two thousand and eighteen and the amount of two hundred and ninety two dollars eighty four cents those two checks together totaled five hundred and eighty five dollars ninety eight two days after that last check was cut and this is interesting because if she would have filed for bankruptcy before that last check was cut she would have been under six hundred and can ask the question counselor is it just  is it just a matter of who received the money in other words if the money had gone to way any gas that may pay their warriors you don't have a case right but the money went to the warriors and then they remade it whenever the share was to the credit against your client right and so you could get the money from your client i mean your client would owe you i said there's some contract between the credit union and the offer right and so your whatever the fee is is done owe but they're contractually obligated to pay that money right i mean i guess i don't i'm confused about why the question why everything seems to turn on who gets the money in the st instance as a formal  a seems formalistic to me oh well i believe the case law out there says that there is a lien a valid mean that is found and i believe that the case of shepherd v stack your honor it states that because it's a voluntary or involuntary transfer i mean they can only receive the money that the creditor receives the trustee or the debt in the bankruptcy can only go back and the money that the creditor actually of this case came through an attorney lien was then cut out most funds and then after those funds the attorney was portioned out the remainder was sent on to a creditor and that's the only amount of money that they received very similar to the case of i don't believe so your honor because there's bankruptcy courts there's bankruptcy cut bankruptcy cases that talk about the attorney charging lean in how it even against a debtor it even if it's easy it's not  that nothing is owned by the credit union we just take a percentage of what comes through pursuant to the continuous agreement or act you're going to think we're pretty good agreement o most elements of this we don't  i believe that the summary judgment is a final order it's a denial of summary judgment less than a grand a summary judgment which is not a it's not a fad order the don't you have to if you want the district court to resolve it you have to a motion asking for a lea to appeal there and have the district court resolve the order is that correct no i don't think so i think it's a final order that we can appeal well we'll s trustee can avoid any transfer of interest if it's paid to the four to or for the benefit of the creditor we believe that the case of shepherd vs back talks about how this can be accomplished it defines for the benefit of a creditor and it states after going into some analysis and some other cases it states in order for a transfer to be true or for the benefit of  that's the eight hundred dollars and they said why don't you just write a check to the electric company because we owe them a one hundred dollars and she just writing a check to the electric company would that be for the benefit of the creditor or would that it would that be because it went to a rd party that would that would be different i think because it went to a rd party i mean from the that is not a creditor it may be that it needed to be disposed of in the district court before it came up so to the extent this court may be considering denying the appeal certainly the apple able to agree as to how you knew there  was an appeal ability issue but you didn't raise it your honor to be candid we didn't it did not register that there could have been that issue until it was brought up by judge evans well if if it's court finds that this has been an issue however we'd agree that we're here you know all issues have been disposed of at least to this point and certainly if this court were to affirm the decision of judge ludington at the district court going to be to the benefit of the creditor which it is very clear this falls well within all the five elements of a preference under five hundred and forty seven dollars the issue is not that the money  think that would fall into the issue under jackson of whether the rd party knew the transfer was potentially boy and in this case there's no doubt that nd law office has a debt collector collecting on behalf of the client understands that if the money is taken within ninety dollars days and it's over six hundred dollars it would be potentially garnished so to the extent that there is any ambiguity or there'd be any innocent rd party it just doesn't fit which is why a judge opperman noted in his decision in the mix the mcduffie case multiple times that this does not this jackson is this case is very straightforward you know on the facts as we've stated this is a preference there is no exception to this preference district court got this correct the trial court the bankruptcy court got just correct we were just bankruptcy court ask for the money back similar to a creditor or even a creditor and whose favor execution has been levied or has been acquired or who has acquired a lien in supplement terry proceedings or any garnishment proceedings  determine that the funds are not preferential that want to guess the funds want to guess never received we're asking that to find that that was not referential and they should not have to return the money that they never received