eastern portion of the central district california in one thousand nine hundred nine they could titian the court to save their home from foreclosure they requested or at least  protection of course in fact this was a chapter thirteen yes you are in for some period of time in the court initially of course the stay was in effect there was protection and a plan was confirmed and then later the debtors default well that those are issues fact in the record but the case was dismissed that is disputed and the state expired however during the course of the case approximately twenty four thousand of the funds were paid but that we believe it was an issue that should have been tried for instance they could have walked away from the home with if they're going to hold the deed take title to the property maybe at that point since the the issue of whether they could have made the decision at that time two years prior to the rescission of the deed and the granting back to the goodrich's like i guess the problem i have yours i don't see what how your clients were damaged in this situation the  there was a foreclosure it was immediately recognize that it came a day or two after the bankruptcy therefore it was too late to foreclose but the lender conducted itself and so did the borrowers in an understanding that this was now the foreclosure was moot because it was a bankruptcy pending and is not the way it went for quite some time well your honor agrees with the trial judge that basically no harm no foul but we believe from a technical title standpoint the debtor had other claims that didn't arise soley out of that state violation of how was he damage to  as a technical matter you're probably right the foreclosure documents were never removed his record but what damage did your client suffer again they  paid the twenty four thousand in which they could have walked away at that point the bank's going to own the home kind of title they could have saved that money that could have been ordered to the benefit of them in their family bank was paid in full they'd have to  or else they could stay in the house that's correct your honor so isn't that a trade off yes it is your honor in the the trial judge made that judgment call that there would be some set off at a certain point but if it was decided in the context of a dismissal and a summary judgment and we believe that it should have been at least tried they should have had the ability to prove that for instance the rent would have been  less than the monthly payment or they could have moved where they eventually ended up in las vegas where maybe the rent was less and that type of accounting issue thirteen and they wanted to keep the house in order to keep the house they tried to make payments they ultimately did fail and the problem is once they failed the foreclosure of actually occurred after they failed in this case then they turn around and say hey wait a minute we want to money back and terminated prior and that was due to the default of the regular monthly mortgage payments and the bank proceeded to foreclose on that basis that's when they ran into the deed of course and said well wait a minute we've got to rescind this they rescinded they started over and they did it properly they never action on the violation of the words the bank itself really didn't realize that it didn't record and again acted as if it had been rescinded they found a perfectly and they participated in the confirmation process then there was a default they brought a motion for release from s saying we wish to foreclose because the payments are in the vault they didn't say well we already have title so we're just going to go foreclose i recognize that that title is no good and they recognize that it should have been recent in the beginning so they didn't really continue or do anything that was consistent with the record deed they did everything that they were supposed to do which was inconsistent with that recorded even more consistent with the rescission which is what should have taken place and we all know it didn't that's not a secret but they didn't do anything to harm debtor that in trying to kick them out they didn't try to commence and he direction they didn't try to collect any money they weren't otherwise entitled to the money that we're arguing about here are post petition mortgage payments that were necessary and required in order for the vendors to stay in this chapter thirteen case they did it for as long as they could apparently they couldn't do it anymore and they eventually default that but it wouldn't be fair to give it back just because record title arrested in the bank's name all because of a mistake and all because everybody acted the way they should have throughout the case so that it doesn't make any sense and i do believe that in terms of an equitable result they did get to stay in the property for those i believe it was twenty one months with being discussed here so it's not like they didn't get anything for the money that they paid and others asking for the money back they didn't try to say hey in the beginning we'll give the property walk away they try to stay in the property they prosecute the chapter thirteen case they went through they had a plan confirmed and they attempted to make they only prosecuted a uni action for three weeks in this case it's two years and that is to demand a jury trial that's not really at issue here but we believe the facts there's never been an accounting and besides the allegation of the automatic stabilization there were five other claims for the fair debt collection practices act certain rules and provisions but that was part of these litigation technique to extract money from the debtor compiler certain provisions but not part with others so i we believe the