one hundred thousand dollars in the form of a homestead exemption and the bankruptcy judge because of her views on the state property is going to let him do that and that is so even though our grief  or her view of the law review of the law on equitable conversion and that sort of thing and so that i think binds the the trustee the law as we've sort of in the brief we said the jacobsen case so that the exemption could never be more than seventy five thousand dollars if you follow california public policy and law which would put in the event them which says that the exemption is fixed at the time the creditors wien is attached there's no dispute in this case  final order whereas a motion to extend time or contested at or over time with not so there is there's a very long list of exemptions and so if we say that they had an exemption of other exemptions under federal and state law so what why wouldn't waste just say this is just one of those passing decisions and it would be appealable at the end of the bankruptcy and following the board analysis are brief said well following looking at the u s of contested core matters and following the board's analysis this seems to be it is their decision to grant or allow an exemption and that would be your your it where it is and where it is the the allowance or disallowance the administration is something else it's a different different matter congress defines it as a separate sort of contested matter and this is this has case the courts at that in order rejecting an objection to selma that which effectively let the settlement stand was not an appealable final order why isn't a denying a challenge to an exemption expressly goes into the the fact that in ministration is significant in bankruptcy cases and this is basically relates to the entire tire administration process by the trustee that's the the green light or the red light are there other exemption coins or the issue in this particular bankruptcy it's entirely through i was going to that's your answer was no correct there are no more exemptions and this is a this is a discre issue there at least from your perspective is important to the resolution of the case yeah and there's nothing left to do the bankruptcy court he's been denied a discharge right he's been denied to discharge as i understand it and i don't haven't seen anything different exemption even if you're denied to just charge in theory you could be getting your exemptions or so just and correct me if i'm wrong if we were to get to the merits and this allow  but in this case there's so the issue of appreciation in the market but we know that we believe at the present time there's there's money there to be distributed and this one hundred thousand directly affects that your i mean how much are we talking about what are we attach basically that's how we will know right that's what that's how we see it there's one other asset there's a there's and we don't know whether it's in or out of the estate because this equitable conversion issue there was a another piece of property in the same on the substance i really don't have anything to add to the briefs i do want to address what i think now standing in front of you as opposed to a week ago when i submitted my supplemental brief which was almost never agree on anything or have in this case but but on but on that i i do agree looking through the the cases again more closely and really as informative is as bullard is i really think it's this circuit's decision and i'm plan right under chapter thirteen and then there was all there is always in that instance you can propose a different point exactly and that makes perfect sense there so i really don't think the bowler is all of the analysis informs use easy it's one of the cases that the panel asked us to brief in our supplemental briefing that really i think has an outstanding analysis and but using that analysis i really do believe we'll or you're following bullard or this circuit's decision in google use again i apologize i think that this really is a final i think there's been a final determination of a discreet issue there was and if you go back and look at the record you'll see in the excerpts from records at page thirty one through thirty three judge carter actually in his december  two thousand and fifteen order actually kind of went through this analysis and talks about it and he came to the same conclusion of course that was pre board but if you look at that i think that's the same decision th the one thing that he asked about is there was a nother exemption being claimed a disability exemption being claimed at that point in time and he thought that that may have led to a series of syria  this answer but i when i'm in front of a circuit court of appeals i never say always and i never say never just on general principles but i you may be right i don't know i think this is a very complicated a rea of law and i think that i don't really have to we don't really have to face that here now since that exemption was denied and so this is the only one that's left and you know the thirty days have passed you know to challenge any exemptions so fake they're not going to be reopened up again at this point in time what else remains to be done in this case well so guess of what the creditors claim actually has made there today and no liquidation for perk for bankruptcy purposes of the claim so i don't know if it's two hundred thousand or four hundred thousand or six hundred thousand no one knows that and the trustee has not weighed in the trustee has not come in and said ok what i want to do is value the house the residen and say that it's seven hundred thousand dollars and then what we're going to do is we're to levy that and then what we'll do is we'll give you one hundred thousand dollars back on your homestead and then we'll apply it to the creditors all of that still needs to be done your honor so and there really under california law there are really two things that you need to have and that is you need to have residency on the date that the petition is file and continuous and then you have to have the intent to stay in the house and the only issue that was ever raised here your honor was the was the fact that the on the day the petition was filed the house was in escrow and it was in escrow because mr gilman who by the way is sitting at counsel table right here to my right was attempting to liquidate the house to the payoff the creditors clients because we could never get a liquidated number that fell through and on the arguments that opposing counsel makes well the only the only argument that was made against the intent to stay in the house coming from the other way your honor is that it was in escrow but i think the  there is anything like that in the record and you know i apologize i'm looking at the record pretty much as the pownall is because i was not the attorney at that time as i think that you folks have seen i came in in mid two thousand and sixteen so i thank you your honor the short answer is that what the court did in is it exerts of record one hundred and seventy seven the judge who had had it done a ruling in two thousand and twelve adopted it by an order on january th of two thousand and fifteen in two thousand and twelve there was no discussion about the property being being in escrow because there was a misrepresentation in the schedules and it was a purposeful misrepresentation judge carter  who seems to be drunk doing fact finding when he's supposed to be sitting in the poet capacity does reference some some decisions the the while case and i think the while case might be wrongly decided in this court has it right in the pearl case suggest that the charleston in donaldson case as in the l a case are incorrect there are a number of things that have just been stated that are also incorrect about escrow being in the process of being closed my opponent opposing counsel has suggested these are findings there was never any finding about that in fact there are no no references in his brief to the record so in that they basically are just quoting into rugged tory response that was prepared so serene response that someone threw into the case it was never any hearing about that and any time you're in a sale or the question is what would you want to do are you planning to leave mr gilman was planning to leave as he had a sale and i think i welcome here but if i may just round up here we submitted documents were requests for judicial notice of that show that he and his wife could not afford the mortgages they had on their property so there were reasons