of the standard in fact neither section even mentions personally sumption by the debtor which in any event would severely undermine the lower court's interpretation but in this instance is fatal because in three hundred and sixty five p t which was added to the code at the same time as sections p one p three congress did explicitly create a process for personal leases sumption in chapter seven and specify that under such process the least live delivery is assumed by the de and not the estate if congress had wanted the same result in chapter thirteen it would have enacted statutory language providing for just as it did for chapter seven in three hundred and sixty five dollars p two accordingly mycroft leas all of the rights and responsibilities all of the benefits and burdens of the answer this is judge carnes i think i've given you two minutes to set out the outline i have before we get into the law just some basic practical questions a little tutorial for me on what all this means in real terms might help me give some context to what we're looking at here so if the trustee had accepted the lease as part of this in the debtor had ceased being what would have happened at that point i guess is that that would have been considered this term administrative fees and the trustee would have been empowered to require that the debtor pay that amount each month is that accurate yes your honor and so that didn't happen at this point because he didn't pay the fee if he hadn't paid the fee what would happen with the planet gone belly up what would the admin what would the trustees powers have been if he did not pay you the see if it was something the trustee and reserved if the payment was being paid direct your honor i'm saying what if he didn't pay what it's a trustee who had kept this and said hey you've got to pay your monthly  airconditioning lease bill and he didn't pay it what would have happened well the last store i believe could move for dismissal of the case for noncompliance of material provision of the plan in the trustee could do the same or consistent with what was asked for in this case the last or could motion the court for an administrative expense claim since the lease payments are an actual necessary cost of preserving the estate but my understanding is this is not something the trustee forgot to do or didn't write it down that you all had actually asked that the trustee take this act and the trustee made a decision that no there are some things that are higher priority taxes child support those kind of things that i will consider and ministry to see but that for this it doesn't enhance the a study from the creditors to include your lease payments and my correct that was an affirmative decision made by the trustee correct the trust the argument seems to be i don't know about maintaining payments to for tax liabilities there is an argument from the trustee about payments to other creditors and how they may be affected by the granting of an administrative expense however the trustee has various powers to deal with that and that's how this has been handled in the multitude of other cases and the trustee is others correct that is through the rights vested in the plan confirmation process and in the code sections that apply and one last practical question if you lose hair you can still go back and age back in it out right it's yours if you want to do that the unit would still belong to the lesser yes your honor no title has passed to the lessee under any authority that i'm aware of just by virtue of the lease being assumed by the bankruptcy estate and you would also be able to say from the payments going forward that he had not met after the confirmation the plan well a bankrupt a chapter thirteen your honor being multiple years even if the claim does survive in the less or is able to assert some coin years down the road that is not consistent with assumption where the assuming party is able to realize the benefits at the present time and then only potentially pay the amounts that are owed years and years down the road if the by the trust the mean and do the words by the trustee in p one refer in chapter thirteen to the plan by the trustee means something other than by the trustee yes your honor in the chapter thirteen practice you'll have to one pack that for me because you know i certainly understand your point that if if congress is going to walk away from established chapter thirteen practice it needs to do so clearly but i don't really understand why by the trustee isn't clear for three reasons your honor some entity had to assume obviously there was an assumption it's either the state or as the lower court held the debtor personally if it was the debtor personally that represents a sea change in chapter thirteen practice and congress showed us how they would have affected that through p two they would have said clearly under this provision the leas using slightly different language but what you're asking us to hold is that that the words by the trustee don't mean by the trustee than the and by the debtor well your honor in three hundred and sixty five trusty is the term that is used the lease so for example three hundred and sixty five dollars a has the requirement that the trustee can assume after a after court approval that is consistently interpreted universally in chapter thirteen to be satisfied by the confirmation hearing likewise three hundred and sixty five b one c requires explicitly that the trustee provide adequate assurance of future performance but universally in chapter thirteen that's held to be satisfied by the plan providing for assumption of the lease so it is your position the same with respect to the deed to which i think the under chapter thirteen have sume or reject and unexpired lease the residential real property or personal property there there likewise the trustee means something else exactly and that is the jack case that we sided where to show the way this is interpreted in chapter thirteen the lesser in that case moved for a shortening of the time for assumption a rejection under three hundred and sixty five dollars the very timing provision at issue here and the court ordered that the debtor modify the plan to either assume or reject the lease that is how the phrase trustee but yet the requirement framework of three hundred and sixty five is sort of utilized in the chapter thirteen plan confirmation process counsel two minute warning reasons why p one should be interpreted to be referring to plan instead of trustees specifically is if we look at p three we see that what congress is intentions were with regards to see if it going to personal property leases in chapter thirteen p three states that if the lease is not assumed in the plan confirmed by the court the lease is deemed rejected in the stay terminate i believe it logically follows that congress's intent was that if the lease is assumed in the plan confirmed by the court the state doesn't terminate and only i'm sorry this is judge newsom i've got to interject and i'm not trying to show up here in fact i had to look this up but it struck me that that doesn't logically follow and in fact i think it's like a standard logical error and again i had to look it up but it's called denying the antecedent it doesn't but i believe that when you're looking at the plain english of the statute and utilizing it in the context of decades of chapter thirteen practice that it's clear what the intent was because leases  only assumed in the plan in chapter thirteen i think we would struggle to find even very isolated cases where these motions are filed in advance of confirmation the reason being in two thousand and eighteen over fifty five thousand for any personal property lease and personal probably are ubiquitous in chapter thirteen there would have to be a motion in advance in all of these three hundred and sixty five requirements that have traditionally been interpreted to be satisfied through plan confirmation if they can't be satisfied consistent with this established practice through the plan confirmation process it is a sea change i think congress would have explicitly laid that out knowing what it would dollars section i had never even looked at that i'd never heard it discussed that any you know educational things it just hasn't been because this thing about the leases being a big deal simply is not true now on c three hundred and sixty three p this was part of the two thousand and five and then the bankruptcy code i think that there was congress was trying to clean up a mess with leases passing through cases and no action being taken on them one way or another in fact the plan we had in the middle district of georgia into two thousand and eighteen was silent on lease and people never neither accepted or rejected the new plan requirements had g put in something about so there's been more activity but by and large people just silent about leases in consumer areas but there was a problem and sevens where they were passing through there they were riding  because there was some cit some ability to not assume the lease and if you weren't in default then under state law you couldn't terminate the lease and they rode through the chapter seven discharge position so they decided to delineate between the trustee and and anything the debtor was doing and they instead of debtor mr pope is confused about that the debtor could always assume a chapter thirteen debtor could always assume a a lease under the plan that's  and it has it has good reason also i'd like to point out that you know this is relatively new in many of the cases where people were able to get leases  the administrative awards have to be actually necessary cos the brits there being the est eleven circuit president abroad for a case which i haven't paid nineteen of my materials in the color tax case now they're not chapter thirteen because there are no chapter thirteen cases in the th circuit there is precious little discussion of leases in chapter thirteen at all despite the fact that since the code was inactive millions a chapter thirteen cases have been filed and that tells me that it's all gotten worked out some other way than to speed by and large but at any rate the th circuit case when it looks at the th circuit when it has looked at five o three b has made it clear that that has to be carefully considered and the potential benefits the state are not enough and  color tax case on page eleven on library says that the standard should be narrowly construed and because of that interpretation a five o three b these leases of consumer items i mean really you can her my daughter leases gallons to go to a wedding you can lease anything and not all these leases need to be given priority and i don't have the power in this case there's a plan and the plan says that i'm supposed to pay these other creditors and that the debtor is supposed to deal with my cross directly i can't i'm not free to just come in there if my prof were to get an award of an administration expense what am i supposed to do i've got a confirmed plan that tells me where i'm supposed to get the money and that's why mycroft thought  in ministry a modification of the point because i'm not going to would not have been able to pay his kline if the plan hadn't been modified and i think you know we have to look at the rest judicata fact of the plan you know happened this coming in later on the plan was for the debtor to deal with my cough directly solve his problems with my false directly and that's what should have been done we should have had a situation where he was coming in and saying what i want to be put in front of everybody and he's an administrative expense he has to go but for the secured creditors and the other priority creditors so it's a big change but i just can't emphasize the fact that this is not this this is not a big change and really this is you know these we deal with little problems of little people and this is not going to cause anybody any trouble whatsoever most leases all they want of consumer goods all they want is their stuff that even if the debtor has leased a property all they want is their property  it was a completely new section it was done in order to clear up the trustees responsibilities in sevens and thirteen's and eleven's from the debtors in obligations and it left the trustee with the ability to reject or failure to to accept the the contract but it left to the debtor with the ability to assume it but once the trustee is out the estate out the estate no longer has to back stop the expense of the debtor and it's up to the debtor to prove to go ahead the creditor to go ahead and deal with the debt or over any subsequent to fall on their own questions probably wouldn't done a thing about it my call filed this motion for an administratively expense and filed for the court and asked for the plan to also be modified so i could pay that but there was no really  valuation i think the term and i could be wrong but it was the idea that it had to be necessary it had to be necessary for the preservation of the state that that somehow was placing value on it the record has don't know what it is that was one of the things the judge carter mentioned that my cough had the burden of proof and they did not introduce any proof on the collateral on the any disposable income that has to be paid according to the two thousand and five amendments and so we tend not to look at some of his choices as far as specially if they're paying being paid directly because that might not necessarily result in a done any other money going to the unsecured creditors will say that i'm evaluating that position in light of this case because once you really look at this this leas in the fact that the debtors paying thirteen thousand dollars perhaps i should be looking at these harder than i have been in the past but the fact that they just kind of through went through and no one asked for  six thousand currently i have administered as many as fourteen thousand at the time and i've estimated that i've been a student one hundred and fifty thousand over the life of my career and you know i mortgage is properly perfected because if not then we would be able to do a preference action and really reshuffle the deck dramatically on what was being pay but we  know you have to go in and object to a plan not being a good faith if you are upset about what they're paying outside it's very there's not a lot of standard in the idea that we're supposed to be coming here and saying no you can't rent this air conditioning or you can't lease you know this particular call are you know it has to rise to an extreme level and we have to go in under good faith in order to prevent a plan for being can confirmed on those under those circumstances it can't be done specially and under median dead or man who lives in a double wide works at the water authority i mean we're not going to go in there say we you can't handle rebuttal a few points of interest the assertion by the trustee that because the ongoing payments are to be made direct the assumption is outside the state the arrears payments that are given by the trustee to a lesser when the lease is assumed in the plan are a clear indication that the contract overall is borne by the a state st in this case for example this is a zero percent plan so if in fact the lease is not assumed by the estate it's just  side contract with the debtor it's completely incompatible with bankruptcy law that the last orders arrears would be cured in full and with payments by the trustee and this is not  provision an anomaly this is how the model chapter thirteen plan works the model chapter thirteen plan says if a lease is assumed the arrears on the lease have to be cured by trustee  payments nd the reason for direct payments is that the lessee in the us state are not permitted to modify a lease or executor or a contract it's either assumed or rejected and it is assumed coup monterey to left source of personal property when the property is being maintained it's all part of one thing in the debtor's assets all or part of the bankruptcy estate and post confirmation under the th circuits waldron case all of the assets the date or debtor later assumes become part of the state anytime something is in the plan the amounts whether it be direct or rejected if it was just a side a range meant between the debtor in a lesser work outside of the bankruptcy case it wouldn't make any sense for the fact that the debtor in the lessor wouldn't be able to have this assumption merely because the trustee rejected it so it's hardly are there no for the question thank your honour's thank you