new jersey decided as a matter of state law that tax that is not extinguished upon the purchase of a certificate it's merely that the we can buy or succeeds to the interest of the taxing district so that the property goes on with the tax lien against correct yes correct and if if if simon hasn't been abrogated in if there's an actual conflict between princeton and simon would what do we do well i believe simon was decided  christian office park resolved that question firmly in our favor so so i do think that there's there's nobody to make dispute now the victorian supreme court has spoken may have said that has become part of the bankruptcy estate they have their claim for that amount correct your honor they can and the question is should they be treated like other debtors or should they get a preference congress would you say it's not intended by a car congress if we are proceeding under five forty seven rather than five forty eight isn't that involved a different section of the bankruptcy code five fifty four which describes the trustees abandonment power that statute is broad expansive it has no constraints upon the exercise of that power it says that the trustee may abandon property of  estate that's burdensome to the estate or that is a in consequential value and benefit to the estate is often ambiguous about that there was no dispute that the terms of the statute were met but both this circuit because the case originated here put this circuit and the supreme court refused to count and there's an interpretation of five fifty four of the permitted the trustee to exercise his powers and derogation of state law and the exact same principle i think true here and in fact it's magnified because we're dealing with multiple multiple essential state interests and it's not that the statutes ambiguous we don't cry don't argue the stat that five forty seven is ambiguous and again you privately holder i understand but imagine him in a simple little hole there which happens all the time there's no distinction imagine congress saying municipality you ended up with a certificate because no one bought it all you've done is try to recover the delinquent taxes by instituting an interaction it's perfectly within their statutory right to collect taxes but you know what we are or overarching point is that the new jersey legislature has made a policy decision that after a period of time a lien holder has a statutory right to foreclose the equity of redemption and become property owner and that and again after a certain period of time that's no longer a preference after a certain period of time it would be beyond any correct there are now that  foreclosed property which is the subject of a bankruptcy filing a timely bankruptcy filing to be subject to at least a two year and ninety day federally created cloud on title which would make ellie a nation hide this tax lien from the perspective by the buyer is going to know in the buyer in all like there's a must be quartered record it's going to be satisfied on closing in you know ninety nine point nine percent of cases the tax is going to get satisfied out of the proceeds of closing  so one when we speak about this to your peers this is this two year period you speak of about where the tax lien holder can't do anything all that is is a statutory statutory timeframe that permits the property owner additional time to gather the funds necessary to rigging up a certificate there's no cause and that the concept of a cloud on title doesn't really exist during that period because again th two years there are absolute there is no to your card on title for that if a certificate holder becomes owner of the property unless my forty seven is construed in this way there is no such thing as a to your own title for a certificate older happy because it's the exact same mechanism it's in p s p under five forty eight it's a two years actually a few years not a ninety day two year period within which the conveyance can be made to bring the claim so really it's a little bit extended there on the front end but on the back end it's not because once that petition is filed we're talking about another two years at least within which to file an adversary action seeking to recover the property and again going back it's hard for me to conceive that something prepared here but just just listening to the back and forth between the court and counsel the bankruptcy code is implied in every transaction and every leases ipso facto clauses are thrown out preference claims are adjudicated transfers are avoided for argument transfers are reversed clawbacks so this is nothing where we're picking on paxil certificate holders this is something that impacts every potential transaction in interstate commerce residential real estate commercial security interests what ha developing the property that a bankruptcy filing occurs down the line there is a remedy which wouldn't upset the apple cart and totally under section five fifty  of the bankruptcy code provides relief the avoid the transfer could be reduced to a money judgment in lieu of returning the property transferred so if there's any concern about disrupting title because of subsequent development that's something that the banks the court or the banks to go grab has made available as a tool to the bankruptcy court to remedy any potential prejudice the might that might result from that  but your honor the crux of the matter here is you're right b s p is it was a transfer case it's a section five forty eight case and while i pled under all alternative theories  chapter seven more is very easy to enter the third grader can figure out what more is the case a cite that a reasonable businessman to determine what more is p really the statutory construction case you don't have to go beyond the statute to see that well if the elements of the statute are applied i would have the divine with the reasoning of congress was just apply the would come anywhere close to bring what they brought in exceeded expectations and conversely options that we thought would be great were disappointing but use up the value because so long as it's well noticed advertised and broadcast so that you can encourage as many spirited and active bidders to attend if only one bidder comes well so be it and that's the highest bidder you accept it that's what v f p is all about and that's the state knowing which in india exactly is evaluating mortgage foreclosure procedure which is a very different thing warnings for closure in pennsylvania as well as in jersey the property would be offered for option as well advertised for a series of weeks the particular property is often off of the court the courthouse steps and the result is the result that's what we have on the new jersey tax sale foreclosure procedure as was discussed previously what is option is the tax sale certificate it's not even the bett all subsequent taxes accrue at eighteen percent so what they're bidding on is the tax up until the pain of the certificate sell it past my ability to do subsequent t bankruptcy case is lien amount plus all accrued interest you know since we're talking about d s p we can talk about another justice scalia opinion rendered somewhat before being the supreme court case called the same question i asked your colleague if there is now a conflict between our decision and simon and the new jersey supreme court subsequent decision in princeton is should that matter to us i don't know but there is a conflict at all the the paks injunction act is not applicable that's a that's a that's a case out of this circuit curd supreme court justice  provisions of the bankruptcy code that affect the collection of state taxes so it's you have you have article one section eight you have the supremacy clause you have the bankruptcy cla your honor i would like to focus on one thing opposing counsel pointed out in order to resolve concerns about federalism opposing counsel said well that's ok because under section five fifty the bankruptcy court can send simply enter an order compelling the lien holder to compensate the former company owner for the value of the property that way stability of title is not impacted that's the exact same approach taken by the g i court judge altenburg a decision out of the district of new jersey which the debtor substantially rely upon but let me just illustrate why this is so so flawed and could have never been in the contemplation of congress imagine as i suggested earlier i'm in a supposing that was doing nothing more than exercising its statutory authority to collect taxes by filing an interim action and you have a delinquent tax payer to the delinquent taxpayer former owner now runs to bankruptcy court files an adversary action along with a five forty seven claim and that prevails under five fifty and obtains an order compelling  to compensate him for the full value of the property this is stunning to me and this is why i cannot imagine that the bankruptcy code was ever intended for this purpose municipalities budget years in advance and order from a bankruptcy court compelling a minister polity with a fixed budget to go out of pocket and pull pay full freight to a delinquent tax payer to and that's pocket payments like it for example in that g i case there were about four hundred twenty five thousand dollars of unpaid taxes and the market value of the property was ultimately determined to be somewhere in the neighborhood of like five hundred thirty thousand dollars so could you imagine him innocent how  getting hit with a one hundred thousand dollar bill out of nowhere merely because it was exercising its statutory right to interim a property that's the way that the bankruptcy court that's the way the debtors suggest that five forty seven should be working with new jersey every bit as a quality has an unfunded reserve which is supposed to account for delinquent tax payers for that particular here unfunded reserves were never meant to cover huge bills from bankruptcy court orders forcing this actually the problem has this well that this is the that's the thing this is a this is a very a problem very very serious a hypothetical but i this are there factual cases underline your hypothetical not yet because this is a very recent vintage this construction of five forty seven is of extraordinarily recent vintage until this case as jersey earlier that was under five forty eight forty seven but it will correct the burley started the trend early start until burley into a twenty thirteen this was inconceivable and there was a case on this year i was  awfully and regularly conduct attacks foreclosure that's that's no one tried and then all the sudden burly opened the floodgates and here we are and it's a brand new phenomenon over the argument based on state interests in my mind now i would note a panel of this court in july of twenty eighteen did five forty seven with regard to a mortgage foreclosure and concluded that five forty seven could not be used to undo a mortgage foreclosure that's the case it's cited in my brief now the the bankruptcy court and the district court versions are cited in my preferred third circuit case was too new at the time i didn't pick it up yet at the time i had briefed and so i i believe one panel of this circuit has already decided that issue as far as mortgage foreclosures it was in the federal panics i could find the cite for you if you want to however we decide to make this a presidential