accord not a great way to begin but i apologize for the state of the record my references in the opening reply brief me not correspond to the excerpt the record in some documents from the excerpts may be missing this appeal is made on three grounds the bankruptcy court erred on the burden of proof the bankruptcy court did not provide a content process and the judgment was not supported by the findings i'd like to begin with that last crown st if this is a seven hundred and twenty seven adver debtor transferred a farming business that was woefully under water by both the marketers lane and i r s lien the fact that i could not get this across to judge parish is one of the great regrets my career this is there was no intent to manipulate the system because there i also want to be clear that the debtor is an honest man i have represented him with three occasions to my knowledge he has never intentionally lied during the time i've known him he paid off equipment lien of two hundred and forty thousand dollars to calcul just and there is a language barrier and maybe a cultural one too that makes our communication difficult bottom line if the state of the record was better there is no case here there was no harm to the state and no harm to without f r c p rule twenty six or local bankruptcy ruled seven to seven hundred and twenty six disclosures without a status conference without a pretrial conference without opportunity for mediation until the last hear proceedings if there is trouble in a petition the trustee demands amends and a case goes forward over its dismissed in my many years of filing chapter thirteen cases i have never had occurred one each and every cases had a trustees objection in each of those cases where the problem wasn't managed the case was dismissed without prejudice i believe this is routine procedure for chapter thirteen by contrast this confirmation was a marathon and the time between hearings was so long that the bankruptcy opening brief in page fourteen yes to the burden of proof the bankruptcy court held several hearings on plant confirmation at the end of the evidentiary presentation on june th two thousand and nineteen the court asked for closing briefs in lieu of argument yes that the parties specifically addressed the issue of burden of proof judge bears made it plainly clear that the burden of proof would have an impact on his decision ultimately both sides agreed that it was the but anyways he couldn't find anybody to take over the crop and therefore he had banded clarity of on who is the debtors this is the mother of the debtors children but they have never had a relationship other than so it was never established what with the value of the props maybe but they were they were nest they were plantings they were they were it was just beginning of the of the planting reading the morning honors i do think the major problem with this case when you review the record is finding any evidence of good faith what we have here is a farmer who had over two hundred thousand dollars in equipment a lease for a farm which had been planted by my client with twenty acres of strawberry crop of that was his standing virtually one day and within a couple months suddenly he is working for minimum wage for the woman that he transferred all of that property the crop and the equipment to for nothing and that  of those transactions were listed as required in the statement of financial affairs when the petition was initially file and quite frankly the only way we learned of it was unfortunate the way we learned that he had transferred it to the mother of his children that's because there's either shortly before he filed or afterwards that one of his children died and we discovered on the duster to forget that that was the mother it was obviously a scheme that he contrived in order to avoid paying my client the one hundred and forty four thousand dollars worth of labor associated with the planning of the crop my client had filed an action against him which was also not described in the statement of financial affairs and i believe the record reflects that it was the only actual state court litigation pending at the time this case was filed the debtor proposed plan if i recall the exact number was that he was going to pay approximately th of a cent on every dollar on every dollar he of my client i think of the end of that if he had actually had that plan confirmed at the end he would have paid my client a whopping one hundred and forty dollars on the one hundred and forty four thousand dollars of it he actually utter the mr number a st to the fact that the assets the donor received were over encumbered i don't believe that to be true and i don't think the record reflects that there wasn't fact an obligation to a marketing company vege fresh which was somewhere in the neighborhood of ninety thousand dollars at the time all the equipment was transferred and as the record reflects shortly after receiving that equipment misgoverned sold some of it for seventy thousand dollars cash and negotiated the deal to pay off the edge fresh but one of the things i think is really important that should be overlooked is the debtor said oh i had this crop i couldn't afford to do anything with it you know i didn't have my marketing i didn't have my financing well as reflected in the record the very reason th financing with dead fresh was they discovered that he had transferred the lease whole the crops and avs equipment to clare gallagher in other words the very actions that he omitted to include in his statement of financial the transfer of significant assets would have been more than sufficient to pay my client that very action was the only reason he lost his marketing financing there is no evidence that there was ever hearing calling numerous witnesses and then briefing could you know submitting contemporaneous closing briefs for the court's consideration that towards the end the ira's finally after the case been pending well over a recorded only but back to dial rest taxes included in those taxes as we pointed out in our closing argument was approximately fifty thousand dollars in unpaid taxes that have been that had been disclosed in the deadest st to bankruptcy filings so not only did he not adequately disclose what happened all his assets and how he transferred everything to the mother of his five children he didn't even include hearing the debtor file that a number of amendments to the schedules and still didn't adequately disclose exactly what happened and the value of the equipment and the crop and all of that if you had ample opportunity of the case was pending bad faith and dismissing the case with prejudice was justified by a cornucopia of examples of that faith can't can you talk about the actual dismissal procedure if if i understand the record correctly it was a motion to just smash the the debtor file under section thirteen all seven b and that your client mr reddy objected to at least with factors including bad thing at the initial hearing on the confirmation of explained that he would absolutely not dismiss a case with the without evidence very here we did all the evidence your hearings the circumstances if not most are instances is granted just as a matter of course but the court will note that in there there was a stipulation between the parties based upon the circumstances that ha but you did it in your objections to the confirmation of the plan a sir that there was a cause for this missile did you did judge bearish treat your objection as a motion in the order you indicate that there was a vote eighty pending motion by the debtor under thirteen and seven b and a quo motion to dismiss with prejudice filed by the creditor was the transfer of the equipment and the farm in this and the crop the mother of these children and the fact that he presented to the court that he had made no income with the president and the debtor knew for a significant period of time before this in the with made by the bankruptcy judge that i have issue with whether this decision to dismiss would be with or without prejudice you and calling witnesses and producing evidence well why i raise that is because he raises an argument that he would deprive of note of an opportunity to defend what essentially he characterized as a and twenty seven just decision via bankruptcy for to deny you know to to say he can never file a bankruptcy that include these claims again and i'm just trying to make sure if you're  one of the things i believe that the record also included reflects that we did get bank records that were produced by the debtor and ms galvanised think that they indicated that over the period i have a note here on adequate disclosure  and there was a point to miss ready made about  oh the dispute between fresh the marketer and the debtor was based on the fact that he transferred everything to clever galvan but that is and that that that happened in february of two thousand and eighteen but if you look at mr dinos examination she she testified that at the end of november of two thousand and seventeen the marketer approached her and said that there were no more payments they were coming to the  debtor that that everything's stopped at that point so that was in november two thousand and seventeen and then from there and it was at that point that he started soliciting people to take over the property so it wasn't an adversary where we knew that his his discharge was up for grabs i would have we would have demanded that this not be