appears based leave about twenty three thousand dollars unaccounted for we don't get that doesn't sound like a complete distribution or i might i did notice that you are  approve it because that are subject frankly if they had not object they probably still be farming today but the lease council felt that there was a possibility that marshalling would occur at that point and the court see also that this appeared to be a classic partially case at the outset and that by i believe the court ruled that if there was a change in circumstance that meets namely the sale of the farm real estate he would revisit the issue again and that's precisely what he did time that you can help me with that in which all four factors were met and if not how can we find the martian was appropriate it's the two desperate situations in south jersey i'm sorry i don't understand your question i the court's ruling was is that the the marshaling element met on the petition date and that's part of the dispute here obviously is when does a court view marshaling rights being granted in the bankruptcy court said its petition date which is the date my secured status was determined and what what  sold bonds the senior security interest gets all the money and then remaining assets are sol later what illinois case says those two sequence transact ins can be put together and trea gold was turned into lead for a secured creditors who was fully secured at the time of the petition and in order to protect the interests of the debtors collection liquidation of the collateral that you had secur and so the what got us into that they was the betters had their opportunity to reorganize what the the in three of the initial opinion in order and they the only reason that is because they still have the real estate if the real estate sold all revisit it because it looks like marshalling should appear that's exactly what yeah and everybody knew that well over let me put it in the m or your brief in fact he supposes that over to come out the other way oh so you did discuss or rather important that that's your honor and i apologize for her for that turning to the do you know your your argument that an issue has been resolved seems to me very hard to correct but it is not west sorry you stitch together to two different time periods as you pointed out in his easterbrook pointed out marshalling in what requires were two things happening at the same time and here well so far as i can tell th illinois courts have not embraced possibility of them happening in their midst but neither have they reject it they just haven't considered that possibility what about the other forty nine states the other forty nine states as far as distributed it's no longer a part of the bankruptcy estate the problem with the problem i have with your reliance on st cloud is is there the junior secured creditor quote slept on his rights for two years here in the november two thousand and eleven decision the bankruptcy judge made very clear what he was doing and what he was reserving for future correction if need be and i've got to say this  kind of has the feel of no good deed going on punished because of the the the loss of position for west central you know order to give the debtors an opportunity to try to continue farming roll over those pro if you're the bankruptcy judge facing the situation in two thousand and one choice is simply to force immediate liquidation correct right to finally bankruptcy judge chose not  he would have been impairing the interests of the six senior secured credit right and i right that that's right your honor and that i'm not allowed to do that in marshalling our way well and that's why that opener is right in the bankruptcy court but right the first time around when it said good reasons not to do that you're saying that the better approach in order to protect central and the debtors rights go forward would have been to liquidate the crops in the equip and hold on to the go back to november two thousand and one you were saying a fatal mistake was made right i would buy west sent in what was it i don't think that there was a fatal mistake but the bank pursuing theirs they get screwed i'm saying that the their security interest that's when the bankruptcy court decided to reject our showing that meant the proceeds estate at that time they were no longer a secured card and yes later on when th won they would be junior to west central in the but five for a three because there's real profit issue you look at terrible consequences for other firms because a future court facing this kind of a matter of of a different security interests should force in immediate this seems to me that a bankruptcy judge craft the pretty good act all solution here they gave your clients the chain outs to try to get their act back together and i understand how difficult that turned out to be but it's hard for me to see why that bargaining position when they entered the law when they made a loan and they took a calculated risk to become a junior lienholder on only one type of property unfortunately this time it did not pay off controls are to be accepted the most titian circumstances of the increase in the creditors claim including the senior lien holder and as well as the fact that she had sold in the difficulty of get that back and reducing claims to the amount of the titian date as well as with it what is there a perk from just the increase in interest  delay there was also increase in value of the real estate and part of that due to my client