this is a clear cut case given the for the application of judicial stoppel because here we're talking about the implication of two motions the debtors used each motion for their own self benefit pay the claims of the estate there's no distinction between the first motion we're talking about the lien motion where the debtors used the value of two hundred sixty eight thousand to avoid  means and the second motion which was the claim objection to my client can ask where they attempted to use the value unsuccessfully in the bankruptcy court of one hundred fifty six thousand that's the one where they were held to be in the lower court as being collaterally a stock in the position i mean the the baptists spelled out that in possession is different from the data and whenever a label appears decision they come right out and say well the debtor typically does propounds motions to avoid means and the debtor in possession slash trustee typically uses does claim objections well there's no reason or background or authority for that proposition they just throw it out and suggest that well there might actually remained until everything could be sort of that out that's correct but i believe that it's a it's a the discretion of the back to even come to that conclusion because under the facts of this case in the record it is so clear cut that all the debtors are attempting to do in each motion is free of equity in order to may have to regardless of the outcome of this case your honor because there's another pending claim objection by another creditor you want to try explaining it now yes sure your honor the this claim that was assigned to my client from the original creditor in the interim between the assignment and my client obtaining we made advances to the senior mortgages in order to cure defaults fi the debtors and we also incurred charges such as foreclosure targets there's another issue which may end up being litigated layer later the lower court which is out of the interest rate but here we're only talking about the amount of the claim itself and not the interest rate haulage of what there was in their mind that well it was drafted by the debtors and my client has never intended to a four enforce that our position is that under the california constitution the rate should be zero percent until do  sion and at that point the interest rate is ten percent and that is our position but at the end of the day if you have to defend against the other creditors legitimate jack and less and legitimate it's not subject to any between the doctors position which is seven percent in our position was which is it that it is ten percent if we get a determination affirming that bankruptcy courts decision that it is x dollars hopefully that it is two hundred  sixty eight thousand dollars then we're just arguing about what the interest rate should have been from the time in the it was due up until the time it is paid it is seven percent or ten percent it's a much smaller issue rather one hundred twelve thousand dollars you do believe that the filing by your predecessor interests in the prior bankruptcy the proof of claim and what's one hundred fifty thousand dollars was incorrect it may have been it was for another time period it was as of the date of a prior bankruptcy filing the reason i say that is because if you take you just take the pure record and with that your to really see i understand what your answer to that i think will be sitting back and letting the smoke clear to me it seems lot more logical to say let's find out the true value is and let the chips fall where they may and that may  which your security was because in this case your honor so many events have transpired that it would be unworkable we have a house that has been sold we have learn correct me if i'm wrong we have a subsequent refinance that has occurred i believe in the name of the new owner and we have the only major creditors that are waiting to get paid pursuant to the outcome of this litigation would and that's it and the debtors here and the debtors here are not entitled to excuse me i'm sorry but i was just once i didn't do the bankruptcy court say nobody gets they didn't until we resolve the a ten s claim that's true but by the  believe it's somewhere in the range of two hundred to two hundred fifty thousand council can correct me if i'm wrong so that's still being held by oscar ok so you have two hundred fifty thousand left and the question is how much of that you get and i don't understand with what the mechanical problem is about determining what that value is you said it's too complicated because other events occur but it seems to me and you can and lightly but you've got to you've got a pot of money and the only question one issue left in the case i want to just you you feel confident in your value if you're right you get it because i think the rematch and will engender much more litigation why i that will not be in the best interest of any credit or loan or my client because it will delay the distribution of the remaining money that's held in that's for the affirmation of the lower bankruptcy court on the other hand will provide her prompt a term nation that the amount of the claims to sixty eight the debtors have already benefited by arguing that in their lean avoidance motion and getting rid of the loop cheney abstracted judgment and the debtors have to pay back the rest of the money anyway because they're not entitled to a chapter eleven discharge they had a prior chapter seven within seven years of this fund so i believe that equitably affirmation of the lower court would be a pro the all past all past no matter how way which way you do it lead to remain and for the court to determine what the amount of this claim is the state has never had its day in court as integers to determine this claim the original claim filed in  ed in fact just to update the court on everything that's happened we have released a hundred thousand dollars so what happened was that the house was sold the first and second were paid there are in fact there was in fact four hundred forty thousand dollars sitting in the escrow and that then k s is the next one in line to be paid and the question is just passed k s get two hundred fifty seven vs one hundred and that's a lot of that's a big money difference there that question is never and for them to any fact finder as to what their actual claimant and we believe the state believes there are several arguments that reduce the amount of that coin and why is that important because there is a legitimate third  behind this lien there's never been any question as to their validity in fact what happened was the debtor son bought them at face value from the people that held them so that he could help his parents he holds those note to pay the attorney fees in this case he is also the judge the debtors of also pledge their homestead exemption to pay the attorney fees and other claims in this case why is that important to them because they're going to owe the money for the attorney fees and the claims in this case if they don't get paid out of this court this corpus so they want to be paid from this so that they're not going to have to worry about those bills late wrong the after the third and fourth then we have the leftover creditor that has to be paid if there's money left over the only amount that the debtors are going to get in this case the top amount that the debtors could ever get in this case is their seventy five thousand dollar homestead exemption whether or not the  the original attorney who did the avoidance motion had said that the amount of cast his claim was one hundred thousand or two hundred fifty thousand didn't make a difference because under the law the dead are only entitled to a maximum seventy five thousand dollars homestead exemption anyway so in the escrow company looking at the letter avoiding the lien knows that they can't release more or litigation you know the litigation advantages there's no doubt about it i don't know exactly what happened to these but yet on his desk at the same time to pleadings written by the same attorney one saying that the value when saying that the value of the lien is one hundred thousand dollars because that's a claim that they filed earlier and another one saying the value plan is really i'm sorry value of the claim is really two hundred fifty something because that's the their files claim in this case and because one says judicial that's right it just doesn't seem right but what he should have done is probably staking a step back and say well wait a minute wait a minute here is the debtor arguing on behalf of themselves which happens in every individual chapter eleven case that i've ever done we make that motion at the very beginning of the case to avoid the liens based on the claim that's filed by the creditor that's all the information you have at the time but then in this case you have this previous case that you ation where after the attorney looks into it and  also have an arguable claim that they're you know they don't have they are actually old less than what they say i also have a duty to object on behalf of the state to reduce that claim what i have done is i had actually been the if it did that i probably would have put a footnote decides because i've a feeling this is going to be in front of me again anyway and we can decide it all the same time and we can consolidate them so we have one decision as to what the amount of the claim is that's a fair one to two but based on state law on this on the security instrument here next year that's right and you know that was based on those those considerations why we released one hundred thousand dollars because the state released one hundred thousand of the amount during the pendency of this bill because the thought was interest cumulating at least the majority of the amount to stay original part of the principle is been released so that given that our anticipation is that the result will probably be that the client somewhere between one hundred and two hundred fifty closer to the hundred that it will stop the interest running at least for that portion of the debt and that's why we done that but it makes it does make a big difference in the payment of which was made by the secured creditor underneath that does their claim is void altogether and there's also arguments of the debtor paid some of that during the time when there's a bunch of arguments there and i have no idea which one of the courts are going to when fall i mean it really did get a windfall when this was decided and it was a clever argument made by counsel of the judicial stoppel argument which i was on the other side i would been very proud of coming up with myself because you know it's faced with having to fight about what's in my nose and what isn't in my know versus the students will stop argument that sort of makes sense on the day when the judge is upset about it because he sees two things right in front of them that are inconsistent but when you think about the estate of the whole the result really should be that days would be that we're going to hold you to the original for forty thousand some odd dollars that would have been the amount of your homestead exemption it's you believe the amount of the claim that i said that's possible penalty that could be impos intentional risk exactly and you know i don't know that would be a fair result or not given that the i think the decision was in this case was entirely made by counsel and the timing of everything and what was said i don't think the doctors really understand th implications of everything here so that's about it anybody else has any questions home prices bankers my whole practice i have been i started out at that and i've always practiced bankruptcy law mainly debtor practice and i represent some trustees where they need somebody who has a better perspective in going after debtors that are particularly heinous so i take those on contingency from some trust like that way maybe when he's a little bit older i worked for a lawyer for months of my life and i hated every minute of it on my own you know that's what they used to do it for i think thank you that and towards that end i do believe that all the prongs all the required prongs of the new hampshire supreme court case that we cited in our brief have have then that is can answer is that a small corporation or yes ye that case when it was over with gave the victors frank thank you thank grips the practice great respectability because i worded something like oh when the dollar was worth a dollar or somewhere twelve thirteen million dollars in fees and then every law firm in town decided to get the bankruptcy practice gives you the whole plan of how you can save the world because not one person lost a guy and there was one time in that space that was honestly wired as he held onto it