of the issues in this appeal i think have gone awry from what the true issues of this case are which is that this is a fair debt collection practices this was a crema fast the unlawful foreclosure where is undisputed based upon the request for admissions number answer to the request for admission of a thirteen and fourteen when they stated there was no amount and that the initiative for closure the appellate in this case has artfully made this about bankruptcy because they're trying to find a loophole for a violation of the f t c p a by invoking wallace and making this about a destructive violation however as in their only case cited to in a letter brief where they talk not surrender the property nothing would have stopped a sure way from foreclosing and exercising there and rights which would have been lawful just as peterson freeman in this case if you read a police brief periods ten there summary of an internal e mails and even the paralegal at the firm knew that there was a discharge but stated mr mr mannikin still owes us money so we have the right to foreclose because they even understood the basic concept that is we still have our rights regardless of the districts and so on that basis alone this does not invoke walls because wall stood for the narrow proposition for eleven dollars federal statute could repeal another when there is a if you look at these facts was walt implicated and the only way was implicated is if there was a discharge there was a violation and if there wasn't a discharge there was no violation that's wa ruling has to be an act of legal causation but for the discharge was this unlawful collection action lawful and yes now do you disagree that your client could rely on the discharge as one of have many reasons why the that should not have been collected or attempted to be corrected i believe your honor that that discharges irrelevant in this case because whether or not there was a discharge act and it is basic it is not a violation of fifteen of the discharge for peterson for i mean to walk up to my client's door and serve him with a notice of default it happens all default that is an enron collection action which is not precluded by chapter thirteen which is exactly what that is the argument for the th amendment seeing because arguments that was analyzing google x stated we're not depriving property without just constant compensation because they each way despite the discharge still has the right to repossess and refer for close upon that residence i have a question so if you go back to basics wh about two different things here we're talking about the arrearages that occurred preposition and they were talking about ongoing payments and they're going to go on into the future how everyone ran this property so i mean this case is only about the rear end because the reinitiated foreclosure proceed post bankruptcy was only about the arrears and so is it your position that that arrears separate from an ongoing payment was not subject to the discerns it was absolutely not your honor and it's clear owed which there wasn't this was paid off there was nothing to discharge and the end remote location which i keep bringing back to the right to foreclose as good alexei had stated and ramifications are not discharged in chapter thirteen but i would just reiterate provided for there is no dispute if you read the plain language paragraph five actions of the record page two hundred and seventeen paragraph nine clearly states the debtor was going to plan and continue to make payments after and how provided for his treatment how was this plan treated there is no argument that can you made that this was not treated under one thousand three hundred and twenty two b five because it hits the this you're saying this is an argument you haven't raised before it's something that in trying to figure out how these code sections are coherently applied together it's something that occurred to me as i was preparing for argument ok so the answer to my question is this particular argument is not raised in any of your griefs correct so in my briefing i raise five hundred and twenty three a sixteen and good a lot but a  so the things that have been raised is the fact that got a leg specifically how that future h o way do our best chargeable under chapter thirteen under a subsection eight as charged for that to the creditor filed at excerpts of record to sixteen was limited to past two assessments h o ways cannot make a claim for future abuse because it's not a personal obligation of the debt and  and twenty two dollars b to provide that security creditors there are claims can be modified but as i said out in my briefing a nature way future claim has never secured so that doesn't come under the ambit of that code his in ram the argument that this follows that real estate this future dues i'm not sure where he got i don't know about him or m but is that where you're addressing it when you were around or in  the letter brief oh no it's not your turn sorry  and how is that for closure related all to than just charge the foreclosure would have been and the reason that the it is that the plan provided in at the close of the chapter thirteen case the death charge injunction was entered doing anything with that that and in seeking to to collect that became a violation of the discharge injunction the lien on the house was only one way because of the chapter thirteen plan well you know whether in bankruptcy law the include harassing phone calls or harassment and solve most won't make it habitable calls that's not something necessarily covered by a discharge injunction contacting the debtor about a discharge that i'm trying to get them to pay it is but there are things in the act you see p a that might be outside of the ambit of walls but where it you where they do the argument is that this is wrongful because the debts not only because of bankruptcy that's when walt kicks in and that's the situation here i don't believe so your honor when when anything concerning the amount of the debt it's too high it's not that often implicate the discharge injunction and that's the claim here that that the this was wrongful because the the debt was paid through bankruptcy and the discharge injunction applies it has the necessary implication of that otherwise if you if if the if wall doesn't apply an innocent area where the amount is alleged to be wrongful it's just going to be a case that that nolen boy because it's going to be very easy to plead around and i will ask your opponent the same question right ok cases where it involves reporting a discharged debt incorrectly and that was an a claim of yes you are in for a report because it was the information that was incorrect that was the basis and the fact it was a discharge order sixty days late that information is the sole basis in this situation and i would just reiterate good alok have they they served a notice of default and what they foreclosed on the residents of good luck that was not a violation of the discharge because they discharged effect in pursuit of rights this violation would have been more awful and i think that's the test wall stood for the proposition that because congress denied the right to a private right of action through the front door lengthy many many supreme court cases diena to federal statute must be allowed to equal leagues exist unless they completely flipped to the point where it's repealed by implication one federal statute cannot preempt another and so it's very important to look at in this situation the question should be could if there would have not been a dish charge would there still have been an actual claim in the answers unequivocally yes had they foreclose when they admit no balance admission thirteen and fourteen do you have a question well that i think counsel has addressed it i think that's fine all right thank you very much