keeping property in the estate after confirmation and thus barring post petition creditors from in forcing their claims against that property the marshal appeal present question whether if the debtor is property such as the car is kept in the keep property in the estate after confirmation unless it is necessary to the plan given the harm that it inflicts on post such as in creditors and also on the legislative history of the code and i'm i'm happy  it was important to keep property in the state until the end of the case or that post petition creditors like the city of chicago are free to enforce planes against the debtors property and in  that man preserves the property to increase the debtors odds of completing the plan and for distribution to pre position creditor i'm not sure that that's a reason that sounds like a reason for enacting a different statute i'm  for gasoline and presumably they have to pay for parking so how about a traditional order so she stays in the state to protect it from the legal creditor but all the expenses have to be paid well we certainly agree on problems i'm i still think whether it's legal whether it's a proper means of implementing the structure i'm not sure whether it would solve your problem day i understand trying to figure out whether this was a good means of we're dealing seem to be dealing with a statutory default presumption and that let us say a number of bankruptcy judges and practitioners in chicago discretion under thirteen twenty seven b to you have at least in some cases with some sorts of findings go ahead and do what they've already been doing on a routine basis now agreed that we think this court should hold that that issue very rarely arises in chapter thirteen if it's not call for the automatic state to extend end of the case and there aren't that many situations in which are costs of preserving the estate whether or not it ultimately results in any benefit in reading it ultimately didn't result in any benefit given that after the fire the company had to be liquidated nonetheless language plain language of thirteen twenty seven b and the plain language of thirteen twenty to be united are explicit when the language of a statute is clear the court must interpret bankruptcy judge given reasons not in this case where the bankruptcy judge conceded she hadn't bothered to read the city's papers and gave no response other than i'm a judge and can do what i want has the bankruptcy judge again your honor i'm not aware of any particular reason that was giving but the way that process works based on the language of the statute is section thirteen twenty two be nice and gives the debtor the right the order confirming the plan the city did not make a procedural mistake right i take it that there's no way of asking this question that's going to elicit the answer that the judge gave either i'm not asking about anybody's intent i'm asking about whether there is anything in the bankruptcy code that in titles people who have chapter thirteen plans not to pay ongoing debts for the next five  whole way authority has to spend five hundred dollars for a lawyer to file a motion that's also not a sensible way to proceed that's true your honor however in my way to proceed to give to use the cost of filing motions as a means of getting the debtor in bankruptcy an opportunity not to pay ordinary and honest debts that don't this thank you you know if there is some articulation of reasons maybe the parties could provide it by post argument memo obviously nobody here knows where it might be filed anyway come back hypothetical that may be a little more compelling let's suppose we have the formal order the vehicle was kept in the estate it's not insured the gutter is on his way to work  zero five claim yes but they would not fire a thirteen zero five claim what they would do would be to wait until the case is over and then pursue all of their nine bankruptcy rubbers if they were eight five years that must necessarily because if they were concerned that the claim would be income and the ability of the preprinted creditors to prevent groups of creditors to be paid administrative claim treatment completely turns that on the head i don't understand why it protects pretention creditors at the expense of post already i would really much prefer to discuss the text rather than them the purpose words on paper have no purpose your honor i am very much in agreement with you on this subject we have to look at the text of thirteen  administrative claim it is given priority over all the other claims the thirteen zero five says to remain payable so in answer to the question i think to look at the hall the solution of the supreme court