sheriff rid of the execution sale for a day certain ten or fifteen minutes before the execution sale is to the head of the debt or the c r filed chapter eleven bankruptcy case before the bankruptcy case was case pursued it in order to resolve all the issues that were before the court of the time the thicks or lock step holdings came to the court came to the debtors lawyer and entered into an agreement that of six hundred twelve five hundred to five hundred dollars what he did not do though is a that that was the sale price for that particular piece of property that to protect the investment of lockstep holdings and that there were deed restrictions on top determine that it's not equitable and doesn't maximize value for the creditors and and and and do that can't it if it chooses to it good it's never been presented that that issue is never presented to the bankruptcy court will it sign both orders it so you have to presume the court knew what it's doing it it signed it to give it in this other settlement agreement but then it signed it to allow it to be auctioned off so to the extent there are conflict in the district court i mean the bankruptcy court knew what it was doing the problem was never presented to the bankruptcy court in this context and the sale should never have occurred as it did if the contracted not been breached the contract with equitable or not in the best interest of the estate of the other creditors we were any case law from any jurisdiction at all any bankruptcy court some other state even me yes storage or national decided in our brave your greed order and took that into consideration i mean he made he made your bid the opening bid so he knew all about them the agreed on it but that issue is not a for the court judge davis b that was never presented to the court or to the remaining credit for body but the court determined that it didn't matter whether the court whether the debtor or the trustee or anyone agreed the court said it would be ignoring three sixty three as court has the bankruptcy court is unique among courts and that it sits in equity in this power it has the power any used it why isn't that right because the issue that bankruptcy court  that the court is not going to prove that you don't need a court will not just as it did not approve this is not going to approve that if it knows that he can get more money and maximize the utility for all the creditors that's the whole ride that should never have been a question the only question before the court should have been let's sell it for six hundred well five hundred dollars to five hundred dollars with a dangerous directions that's the only issue that should have been before the court this other day had all these other things should not have been before the court on that slice of the property fiduciary obligation required to read examination of their position these are they the settlement agreement following the issuance of the december thirty twenty fifteen decision as to the debtor sure to comply of the settlement agreement at least until a time when after notice an opportunity for hearing the court declined to approve the agreement that did not happen here trustee have no obligation to maximize the essence of the state he did your honor but he had a higher obligation produce your duty to maximize the assets of the estate trumps any contractual obligation that a trustee arguably may occur in the course of making an agreement that is not enforceable unless it is approved by the  appeal as moot consistent with section three sixty three m the sale was closed as evidenced by the the settlement statement in the deed that were tested a motion dismissed  which asserts damages of some sort for the breach that really hadn't yet occurred we don't know what that is it's it's premature at this point to why is it premature at this time the sales already taken place and they didn't get their money and they didn't get it  about is moot but we have to decide first whether or not they breached the contracts whether a contract was breached and that's what's being tried right now is whether or not through the sale and breach to to open this up the highest and best well that's over we're not trying to do that we're only was trying to decide what this appeal is about whether or not it was the trustee acted improperly  not going through with its contract that's in that's whether or not it was balanced by its contract through the settlement agreement that's what this appeal is about that's what's all the briefing is about whether or not that through because of the settlement agreement the trustee acted improperly well again i respectfully disagree because as you were asking the mickey thompson case was approved by this court in the millions in raymore case which said we have a settlement which is affectively a sale and the court has to consider that under the under the same terms as a section three sixty three sale of real property outside the ordinary course of business that the sales order which is the order from which appeal was taken has been mooted and that's consistent with what the nature of building a case just came from the court six weeks ago that said three sixty three the sale did close and it and it's a little bit unusual in situations like this that the sale closed after the briefing i guess but if if clutched at holdings has a claim for breach of contract or whatever else it might be which hasn't been asserted or tried then we'll go back bankruptcy court will try but that in having to do with appeal of an order that allowed the trustee to sell the property over the objection of blocks that holdings to sell it to me at this bargain basement price which the proof shows it was one quarter of the price for saved at the  sell got a better deal without telling the first the first bit or with the where there was an agreement negotiates a better deal goes the bankruptcy court  motion to approve the second deal the first the first purchaser objects and the bankruptcy court says that's what he's supposed to do it's a higher better offer and improved so that that's what we have here the trust obligated to do what he did to your point heat he couldn't have followed that motion we had those discussions i can't follow this motion by filed this motion to approve the sale to glocks debt holdings i am immediately in duty that's why they if you go back and look at the record there were all kinds of proceedings there was a motion to compel fall by the appellant to make us go and file this this motion to approve their sale and y they had a sweetheart deal that just simply wasn't going to ever be approved by the bank of support from so if if the fallout from that is that the appeal is moot which we submit of course it is sitting in escrow and they can sue for whatever they want to compound it was it was resolved no sir it was not it was resolved and basically it was an agreement that we would proceed with you don't want us to rule bit as the bankruptcy court are determined that they the trustee did exactly what it was supposed to do you don't want us to determine that here today if believe that that would be a proper decision for the court to make but at the same time i don't think that there is a valid claim i don't know what the claim is it hadn't been state there's no complaint to prove a claim doesn't assert a breach  contract it asserts that we did all these marvelous things emerge title to an administrative claim a post petition claiming the amount of a million dollars well it had been litigated so i guess it was premature i would love for you to slate clean his and his home and then we can distribute this money in this bankruptcy case to be over but i don't feel like that's proper i don't think that the that there can be a valid breach of contract claim when the law is so clear as to what the trustee is required to do and the findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy court made or so clear and met with no rebuttal evidence other than this just one fact if you don't want to rule that i'm happy for you to rule that way of course following the rules in the statute i just don't think that we're there yet teed up of those the propriety of the bankruptcy ruling of their objection of what transpired sort of teed up is the neon sign issue the movement is sort of ancillary but you prefer ancillary well again i don't think under the case law that that there can be any determination that there was a valid contract simply because the parties went over in a corner and negotiated a deal that was memorialized by an agreed order and they agreed order is not  in this instance as the record was replete that in mr gino technology it had to be noticed out and in the in the in the more case it you have to treat it just like you do a sale so the court wasn't going to approve it so what good's the but what good is the agreement it was a it was a bad agreement and in bankruptcy for good or bad you have to go get approval of those kinds of things and approval was a granted it wasn't even soft and it was a sultans trusty came along and it wasn't going to be great so i'm not terribly terribly troubled by a breach of contract over a contract that the court said it was never going to approve  the court was it was right in that and the cases are are right in saying the parties can't go out in negotiating agreements that bind the parties and bind the court when that hadn't been noticed out or proof vest just not how it works in bankruptcy court solvent the sale was for over six million dollars and in addition to that you know that the mr you know rep referenced the department transportation money what happened this is at the corner of the interstate in a in the in a very developed area and a new interchange being built there and the on ramp took a piece of this property and the quick take proceed you are in mississippi whatever the claim maybe but it's a it's an it's it's an unusual case and jeff seven that has six million dollars so naturally people continue to fight over to pull back into the estate so maybe this is not an issue or a problem here because of those issues the purpose behind three sixty three is to protect and encourage purchasers so that if issue a sale is overturned