different ways of pretty emotional distress injury you can have a person come up and say this person psychologically injured or the judge can look at a family member's testimony as in this case we didn't really have a foundation for how to evaluate emotional distress basically just made a mathematical calculation of this many claims this much percentage however i'm also troubled that when the court gives jensen the opportunity to go back and do segregation by claiming that there was like thirty two hours deducted and there was no really meaningful effort to segregate out the prevailing claims from the non for mailing claims so in a way that you know the court was sort of forced with a throw up your hands situation and there is some question about why would it be an abuse when stinson didn't really offer said that you're not entitled to it right you're down to about six and a half minutes did you want to save any time to revolve your family ok thank you for your argument coun states and which we won is that the court's finding that it was incredulous an unreasonable for vi rights attorney to rely upon since attorneys representation that judge jalen found that the august ninety sixth chapter thirteen of the in bad faith that judge galen found no change circumstances that judge go in order to case dismissed from the bench and that by right can proceed to trial on november twentieth one thousand nine hundred ninety six this all in her minutes case dismissed this whole information was passed on to the debtor the debt it was well aware of what was going on mr cooke did rely upon it and went to trial and did obtain his judgment the judgment was served on the d committed he received it in december of one nine hundred ninety six the actual order dismissing the thirteen wasn't served until december ninth mr cook doesn't recall seeing it but there's no reason to believe that he didn't get it right so for the first time over a year later says there was a stabilization immediately after the debtor sends this letter he files his fourth chapter thirteen petition immediately after and the sole reason why he court considered all of those things and basically said he's the bad guy for waiting you guys are bad guys for not doing something that would be real simple to do and that is not relying on a man or a representation but going into the court file and seeing fact happened which anyone practicing in bankruptcy would do and so it went like this and said you know what i've invoked my discretion and here's what i'm going to do what's your best argument for why we should where a policy counsel makes these representations to me because a judge galland did order the case dismissed from the bench that's a dismissal order other people were confused other trustee thought it was dismissed and i lawyer and i think counsel pointed out something in her opening and that is things aren't always the same and thank of sick or some point in our case you know there having done some of this myself it's counterintuitive in many respects it's not the same as practicing commercial litigation in the normal that district court here you have bankruptcy counsel who know that it's a violation to move forward without a stay did they do the simplest thing possible which was to check the court record they didn't do that no your honor and yet in re national the view lawyers knew the same thing the lawyers knew or the court found that they knew of the bankruptcy and yet they found that the silence of the debtor was sufficient to overcome that not we don't just have silence here we have an affirmative representation and that's the issues that you still have to be able to rely upon in the question is can the lawyer be punished and can a debtor make a misrepresentation and then sue you for sa thing you relied upon my false statement and that's what he did here because he remained silent and then once he brings up he brings up the chapter thirteen the statement but the other counsel makes with his faults you know it's the other side doesn't creditors make a mistake it seems i must say mr smith committed fraud here he made a representation here that it was a fraudulent recently i'm sorry he made a misrepresentation because mr smith later on said i realized that i was wrong that  didn't order it dismissed from the bench but mr the point is that if you make that representation because the problem is here that this was a debt that was not this charge this was a collectible death the money would have been paid the money still o in terms of that the way and specially in re national with a focus on the silence here is a factor of the debtor but then you have the second the fourth bankruptcy in which they filed a petition to vacate the judgment the issue is now before the court properly before the court you need to file a separate federal action they follow the bankruptcy to deal with this issue they filed a petition and in after titian to vacate they never raised the state  his that that's in fact a place where he was aware of the judgment that's undisputed in the foreclosure of the the first closure efforts didn't take place until after the fourth bankruptcy was the court clearly found no wasn't discards in pella papers counsel here said that the defense is that there's no consideration for the guaranteed because remember this was a guarantee of a judgment as a matter of law there doesn't have to be consideration for a guarantee second in the stipulated fasts the reason why mr stenson guaranteed the corporate debt was to prevent the forbearance on that so that there are no the fences to the debt as a matter of law on it and that's  judgment would have been able to have been pain three months later and that's the whole point why this the alleged a violation cause no economic injury on that so i think you have to in balance of the equities i still find that the abuse of discretion issue is on e the idea that you get that it's a reasonable to rely upon the representations of the debtor second that the court really going to consider that the way he caused by the debtor in this case that was discharged when he saw the foreclosure honest house his distress was he thought that that was this not that there was a state violation but he thought that that that was discharged well that's an erroneous belief but that was not this charge don't you submitted first of all counts was wrong she never submitted a declaration there was no declaration the only that gratian you will find in that file is my declaration it was never a declaration the judge asked her for a declaration second time around he gave her t had nothing to do with the step he asked her to take that out she also sought damages for a business that didn't exist she also sought damages for a loan that's look up a huge amount of time in this case she lost on those issues the issue with the stay was all stipulated facts there was any dispute to the facts of the state violation that could have been done in a day it should have been done back in the first chapter of the chapter thirteen but there is no dispute that what mr smith said to mr cook is no dispute as any faster litigation all involved the discharge allegation and the fabricated damage point you've got to remember the judge found