mate please the court my name is john downing i represent the creditor certain davis in this matter which involves the confirmation of a chapter thirteen plan of miserable tree in the northern california the center's a division our position and i think it stated pretty clearly in our reply brief is that the court failed to consider the value of mainstreamed that's an l l c that has as its an asset a i think it's a basically a single piece of real property because those the value of her interest in those properties  miss davis and other creditors in a chapter south end would be likely to recover more than the nine thousand that is provided for them in the fixed modified plan let me let me stop you for a  nd if i could break in with a question what evidence did you offer on your side as opposed to argument about what value the property because they could realize in those property well we rely on information from the schedules and from the submissions missed all the tree with respect to sixteen any road  valued international meetings international schedules schedule a she indicated that the fair market value of the sixteen any property was twenty eight million two hundred and eighty six thousand i believe i think we had evidence that the sales price that they had purchased the property was two hundred and ninety thousand and then with respect to the l l c in her the real property owned by the city was four hundred and thirty thousand she are so indicated that there were at liens against that amount of two hundred and forty two thousand and eighteen but with regard i'm asking more vod evidence rather than arguments you didn't offer independent evidence of the value of these assets right you were lying about what her evidence was that the schedules and such that's correct did you i did not see in the record any place a copy of the operating agreement for the l l c is it in the record someplace and i missed it it is not in the record your honor i think that we  own or that that the court would have sent this for evidence your hearing or continue the matter that we could've contained and presented that evidence but no we did not present a copy of the op and so based on that i mean i think we present evidence about here i think that the court should have considered the value of these two assets to the stage and i think in a chapter seven shares or interest in a l l c that itself owns assets regarding any like on how the corn based its ruling on three different findings that they're on three different way based on the evidence based on analysis of new york law and based on the surrender let me ask you about the surrender is that relevant to the hypothetical chapter seven liquidation test because there's no such thing as surrender in a chapter seven case the property would not be surrendered in chapter seven states right that is correct and in chapter seven is there is no surrender well why is it relevant to consider that we're doing the hypothetical chapter seven liquidation because in this case the hypothetical chapter seven liquidation is being applied to the bankruptcy estate and because there is the chakra thirteen and there is t surrender that surrender therefore that's what interests are being analyzed in the chapter seven liquidation test well but the this hypothetical chapter seven liquidation i think under the statues must be done at the petition and at the petition date there was no surrender right that is correct the surrender does not become effective until the confirmation of the place but council isn't the point really  seven mother would have the right to offset as against the debtors interests all of the issues that the court addressed with regard to the payment said she had made in instead so the standing in the shoes of the debtor would be subject to the same kinds of offsets mother would be claiming and so you did file by surrendering that's just the ultimate resolution that there's really no value for the estate right for rec this rendering is consistent with the leaves other statements regarding this in her position that the mother had essentially taken the property invested in this pursuit of the disagreement and she was merely following through with by fifty percent of this company based on what it's whatever it's worth knowing that there's another partner who has to cooperate in the in the circus circus xampp and that's why when judge parents raise the earlier left was in a chapter thirteen i do not know the current status of that case and wonder what his plan provided about passion l l c i don't think it's in the record but it's an it's one wonders my recollection is it provides the same valuation is our schedules but i'm working from a collection here i do not have his schedules in front of me and of course he could have been amended or changed since i which stated that melnyk case among other cases that another case cited the strong preserved truth is that they only equal interest so i don't think and i think if you put yourself in i represent ninety percent of the time i represent debtors if i filed a chapter seven i don't think a chapter seven trustee would accept the word of the coach tenant that they had last or they got or that they had a last than an equal share in that property so i think that with respect to sixteen and again i don't think the partition analysis applies and i think instead the strong presumption there new york was that she owed a one rd interest in this property is what should instead govern and so that's my concern position on that and i think that i think if you look at it from a chapter seven trustees position or a creditor and a chapter seven trust in a chair for seven case it would only be too easy for a debtor to say hey yeah sure it looks like i'm one half owner in that property but i'm actually not my mother actually is i'm going to just transfer property over to her so again or the surrender issue you know i get that if the if the mortgage or the lien in this case took up all of the value of the property and so quickly the surrender cases involve cars you know there's no issue there's no surplus for creditors but in this case i think there is it is sort of was the creditors based on the presumption that the debtor owns a one half interurban one  rd interest in his property as of the date of filing so you know i just creditors perspective not a debtor's perspective i think that i don't think essentially that the debtor in this case should be allowed to get away with this on the evidence that they presented and that the partition analysis doesn't apply with respect to the or the six main street i will say you know i finally understand that you know six certainly you know i mean i have another case right now where my clients have a restaurant that's an hour see their majority owners but the minority owners the landlord the landlord has all sorts  protections that make the value of the restaurant far less than what the creditors would at my client simply owned it and it still sort ridership but in this case again number one we're going on the valuations provided by the creditor by the debtor it without any sort of analysis of the effect of the operating room and and number two the other sharon's of fifty percent sha sell the underlying room property and i think the under the fact that it's essentially the only asset of that of the city is this piece of real property that does away with quite a bit of the issue of  how do we value this it's not like a you know again using my restaurant current example they rest my restaurant clients you have to look at the profit and loss of things of that nature and you have to  look in that case to be able to see whether that that piece that i said has any value so i think for all those reasons you know i think that sixteen any and forty six main street had more value than was d given