is arise out of bankruptcy courts lena boy dances mr walters judgment please i don't think that there is any dispute between the  homestead in this case waltrip believes that the host it is defined by more than just the home it's everything and in fact under missouri statute it is defined by the home the land the rent issues in the products they are up and under that definition that would clearly include the insurance proceeds they existed on the day of filing they work for it you're  let me ask you this because a buzz somewhat familiar with bankruptcy but not as much as you need to be if your argument is correct and where the proceeds and asset of the estate you ask under five hundred and th the homestead exemption exempting those out represent the house that they are example by the homestead exemption your honor they take the place up and that's and part of the argument here your honor is that if you can exempt insurance proceeds as if they were the homestead then they must also be included in the value of the homestead underbox went to act because you were up climb the homestead for purposes of determining whether or not you were existing is impaired so if you can entire argument that the decision with the bankruptcy court ringback of the bankruptcy court is income grew us with the other parts of the bankruptcy case law if you're going to allow me to properly the home exactly the same nazi follow on procedurally because i'm kind of a procedurally phone procedure focused person did you object did you in responding to the motion to reopen treat them that way we don't know whether the trustee one of the band if that were known to the bankruptcy court the insurance proceeds well not properly disclosed on the schedule by debtors counsel weren't that in the schedule but they were on the cell  you're arguing now i think was foreclosed i think by permit in the or at least not objecting when the bankruptcy judges judge explicitly said i have reopening only for the purpose of attacking  well what we're what i'm trying to make my point here is that they that the bankruptcy i understand your point and we've argued all along that miss so in your should not be allowed to i would the case is already reopened when i enter celeste be that i'm bound by what was there when i got there ok so when the case was that when the case was reopened and i filed a response my response to the most to glean was that the debtor should not get the benefit of not purpose but what we're going to hear is not whether or not she could reopen it for purposes of accordingly but what how to value the thing and my argument is the thing is more than just the home as it existed on the day of filing the as his condition oh  was less what it was for us than what it was reduced by is famous for the share that'll be your argument and don't don't tell me that's foreclosed under completed does he ever going to say or does he go ahead and complete no sale until with the just deliver i don't believe the deed will ever be delivered there is in fact at stake court matter where this has been staked the liberty of the deed possible your hono was discussed with the bet a jury oral argument was discussed and b in connection with the windfall argument made by walter bell also the in their principle brief before the before the bath and before yes circuit in a bit later when i saw what was happening here in the state court but it was just flows in the statement financial affairs disclosure disclosures closer the three rules when you're putting together bankruptcy schedules and i would say that of time about sixty days after the three hundred and forty one meeting presumably in order to determine what to do about these insurance proceeds i myself that a bankruptcy trustee for about sixteen years now and judging from my own experience the bankruptcy trustee really had two options to look at here or three i guess option number was a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor takes the insurance proceeds rebuild the hall and it bankruptcy trustee is don't like to do that we don't like to be general contractors we like to be litigators and folks who us sell assets general contracting is not something bankruptcy trustees enjoy option number abandon her interest in the hall as it was destroyed by fire and attempt to execute solely upon the proceeds of the insurance policy themselves  itself that was not done here i can't tell you why it was not done here i believe that there is a stipulation of fact that the back of the way agreed with or disagree with their own oral argument the stipulation of fact was that the insurance policy require those funds to be used in connection with the rebuilding of the residence and option number three which is what the trustee it shows is to say this is an absolute mess i don't want any part of it and i'm going to abandon my interest in all of the assets of the bankruptcy estate and that is exactly what the bankruptcy trustee did in this case and i also want to point out the bankruptcy trustee is a seasoned bankruptcy trustee she's going to bankruptcy trustee for about twenty years this is not her st walk around the block when it comes to a bankruptcy case so i trust the bankruptcy trustee his judgment in not rebuilding the home and not executing upon these are should say administering upon these insurance proceed years ago it was january th two thousand and seventeen a very large judgment the bankruptcy case was filed about thirty days after that the judgment creditor author of l l c had certainly plenty of time to investigate the home and find that it was in complete disrepair due to a fire and take post judgment discovery to determine if there was an insurance proceeds and then rd possibly execute a garnishment upon those insurance bankruptcy case now we're talking about reopening and retroactively changing the world and even if it's if it's real and the ruling is that the insurance proceeds were part of the homes that were bankruptcy just think purposes then the estate it one hundred and thirty two thousand dollars and assets that debtor didn't conceal but didn't didn't put where they belong that the courts just ignore that in deciding whether there was a windfall because that's not before the court right now as to what will happen is what will happen you administer or minister upon an asset that that trustee was aware of the existence whether it be orally through testimony i don't i'm sure that i'm questioning the bath the bankruptcy courts and the baps reasoning on this  correct half of them the problem is your audience late it was too late you can't on abandoned asset of what you're aware of when you're a bankruptcy trustee you can have you can reopen explains about the court i'm not about the trustee i'm talking about the court but that's who we're dealing the court will not set aside in a band admit a general abandon that if it was done so with knowledge of the asset so for the court routinely bankruptcy courts throughout the nation routinely open bankruptcy reopen bankruptcy cases for the sole purposes of conducting lead avoids in rainfall that case was two years old it's not as hot as hell  that's fine but this is a this is a this is an equitable regime and we're here to see banks or in the bankruptcy courts the courts followed inequity we're all due respect to the court your honor i think you are here time and that's what the court has asked and that's what is being asked to do but if you look at the wealth of case law we have we have cited you know starting with the cola formula going down to armstrong versus harris which is a case real estate as the petition date and that's what our case last says you do you value it as the petition date as it where is and i want to point out something else in terms of a windfall to the court please keep in mind that pursuant to the joint stipulation of fact the fire took place before the judgment walter pelosi is receiving exactly what they had when they receive their judgment and that is d a judgment lien on a piece of real estate worth a worth at most six thousand dollars due to a full and complete fire damage so if there's a windfall in this case you're asking for the windfall to be put in the hands of of waltrip l l c if you decide to magically give him as additional collateral all the insurance proceeds that is where the windfall c the court can take judicial notice of the bankruptcy schedules that were filed and i can tell by obviously the oral arguments of court has reviewed the very carefully mr sawyer is a waitress at denny's making two thousand nine hundred dollars per month she less unsecure claims totally in excess of five hundred thousand dollars but if the court digs a little deeper you'll note that the claims of walter eliseus listed twice and the approximate two hundred and fifty thousand dollars each particular times of the reality is that ninety eight percent of the claims in this bankruptcy state belong to waltrip and i think that one can assume that that was the driving force behind behind this or yours having filed this bankruptcy once again i brought up a couple of cases which discussed how you value the property as a petition date and i thought i would read read just just real quickly discussing the valuation day  examined and the implication for certain lien holders allowing that exemption and that's exactly what we have here your honor we have are we have a situation where where the court in reopening the case and the court avoiding this lien have put the creditors back essentially the same place they were on the petition day mr waltrip has a lien on a six thousand dollars piece of real estate and mr sawyer  insurance claim mr waltrip or that as well for l l c has never argued that they have a claim to the insurance proceeds and have never attempted to execute on those insurance proceeds the case cited by the appellant here discussing the insurance proceeds been a substitute really has nothing to do with valuation they have to do typically with contract claims which is most this case is most certainly not a contract claim case in addition  mature case which is will likely upon them has to do with the disclosure issue and whether those can still be claimed as exempt when there is no disclosure get into the issue of fall the only  finally there was no delay in exercising their rights that have been prejudicial to walterboro all see the value of the property has gone up since the petition day rather than dial him and he is put right that in position he should have been and would have been had this motion been timely filed and i do see my time is up and if the court has any questions i'm certainly willing to unable to administer kind of the debtor just to keep all of that equity and not having had to update any of her unsecured creditors she gets bankruptcies to give a debtor a fresh start not a head start and this debt are definitely got a head start she has a house that is that while you're at one hundred and ten thousand dollars or whatever it is valued at today and in my client's sole argument is the homestead was the same value on the day of filing because the insurance proceeds constituted the value in the property they were the property they were the substitute they were the alternative they were the property and the same thing different is contrary to other cases that allow the debtor to exempt those proceeds as if they were the homestead so what's essential in this case if determining what comprises the homestead on the day of time we are arguing that the value of the homestead on the day a piling isn't the fair market contract since the insurance proceeds reps are represent the substitute for a replacement for the thing being sold ok so in that concept in that particular limited in that