law for whether this malpractise claim was prepared to sion or post petition and it seems to me that the malpractise occurs neither preen nor pose but at the moment of filing because up until then there is no harm that has come or would necessarily come unless the petition itself is filed so just when the event is the filing of the petition for itself does that count as post petition or is this a foolish question you know with the one of the two key points in this because we have to know under nevada law whether it became property of the a state post petition or not yes you are correct because it is not either pre partition or post petition it is the filing of the petition and so that's why i'm asking the question of whether there are three categories or two  the issue here is was the that i'm a huge bank then for a petition i mean even when the petition was filed six days early it could have been cured if the if the council had just agreed said oh i guess we'll just dismiss this petition because now you're creasing there for the damages are contingent right ok the fact that the damages are contingent doesn't mean they don't exist number two as i pointed that a debtor doesn't have the option of asking for a nd shot at the nd bite of the apple if the eighty's if they screwed up on the st one and there's no question here and we now of course in that the nd part of the argument would be that you know you're playing the siegel factor to the u s supreme court case which is then included in the in in o argument that most of the elements of the bankruptcy of the cause of action occurred preposition it could be included in the bankruptcy estate and court has pronounced when legal malpractise cases a clue whether there are transactional non litigation legal malpractise or litigation legal malpractise either way it bodes in favor the debtors here in  action accrues and this is in a transactional not litigation context and action accrues when the litigant discovers or should have discovered the existence of damages not the exact numerical extent of those damages in this case the issue actually loss or damage to actual loss or damage done to that i'm talking about the knowledge versus the damage of the damage has occurred and there's that fully a crude cause of action please with all of its elements if you don't know th and a cruel you go with what it has been court says regarding a cruel and that is when it's discovered and there's actual damages and when you go into litigation context also  understand your your response it is maybe nevada law is really different from other states laws in defining a crew of my discovery which is quite rare i think  this sort of context that the having to consult an attorney can fix the problem counsel's injury well i guess we're going to toss that really was when they were at that time that appellant had to hire an attorney to defend against the suit so that's the injury they identified once this complaint once this petition was filed it was never going to be fixed without an attorney's involvement even if it was just to get that then dismissed perhaps over the government's objection so that intrude was baked into this the moment this was filed the league in solid sense and my mom i disagree i mean there's essence statute of limitations and cop goby young was way will and the same thing here the i r s could've not went and collected on this could of could have not done anything on that it could have slipped through the rugs there that's that's it's premature to sue under nevada law under the case law until the it can't so i have another question and in the same thought line of thought on page ten of the ballot opinion which is a even more important is i agree with that but also the case was cited in the reply for the st time there at the opposite of what we have here they were reviewing a a bankruptcy court decision to not dismiss here in the banker's you court judge agreed that in the in the holding and found that gaiman failed to dismiss in refile so we have the opposite here in and i cited to where that's in the transcript there we have a situation where this is an abuse of discretion standard for the trial court and our judge in this case that was  dismissal of the bankruptcy beauticians which is the reverse so a lot of those cases don't have a solid basis on what we have here because that was the view reviewing abuse of discretion for a actual denial not the granting dismissal like we had in this situation with the judge indicated in the holding so it's it's the opposite situation here and views of discretion that's the standard on that so they just don that the district court  refusing to dismiss the banker's edition didn't abuse discretion that doesn't mean when the opposite situation we have here where the bankers or court would have dismissed him and allowed to refile that that's the opposite anything beyond that in those leaps decisions is dicta is that's not the factual pattern that was was in those cases i hope i answered your question so i mean your bottom line position is i gather that the harm that the cause of action or the malpractise didn't grew until after the petition for bankruptcy was the cruel is clearly under the vast green court requires the actual loss or damage not potential or perceived or it could happen it has to actually happen you have to actually get garnished you have to actually have that nevada cases involve the issue of statute of limitations supposed to the actual loss having in fact occurred early here are every one of those in terms of when the statute of limitations begins bizarre if an attorney says to a client your statue of limitations case is three years it tells him five times specializations three years but on the evening of the two years running as an actual two year he scrambles together and files a lawsuit and saves the day that the pre bankruptcy eat him proper advice of saying is three years that's nothing it's another there's nothing to that same with if somebody  to bring him back to life fair i hope case it looks like the that siegel a still good law and number town could i ask you could i ask you a question though that's kind of concerned to me that's really almost a factual determination by both the bankruptcy court in the bath because both of them stand that this that no damages were baked in at the time of the filing of the petition that all the images could have been avoided if if there had been damages but no inevitable damages so what's your response to that which doesn't really call into question segal or any other sort or fancy analytical questions and so most of factual determination damage after that the time of the filing because the damage could have been avoided entirely and so that that really isn't the same as your lottery example and i if if you have a order if i am liable to the bank or the to the i r s where two hundred and fifty thousand dollars but if i do two or three things afterwards i am no longer li arisen until the time to post petition that that action was taken well just as they and the other case the attorneys fees weren't required until said i'm sorry i made a mistake here let me fix it there won't be a charge here no that is not uncommon i think well that true but then you know you're saying that if i commit limitations ran on it but it did so does that mean if you commit malpractise and the statue of limitations runs on malpractise there's no malpractise not the kind of plastic what i'm asking you is if there is and event of lawyer negligence that doesn't result in any actual financial damage does it become a viable claim for legal malpractise or is it merely negligence that's interesting to know about but it doesn't ever accrue as a cause of action if there is no actual financial damage that results somebody could commit a legal malpractise which causes damages you're saying you're asking is if they go back to court and get it reversed no that's well that's not my question i understand that's how you want to reframe it my question is if some if a lawyer acts negligently but no financial damage ever occur well you know there's a real cruel you're correct that think we understand both counsels positions and we thank you both for very helpful arguments that case just argued is submitted and that marks the end of this morning stuck in