i am not going to rehash my brief because i think i was pretty thorough in it but i would like to open up to the court to answer any questions or any ambiguities in my briefs may have caused for the court of clarification started this case as a chapter thirteen to preserve she had a family home and it is our position that the court was misled in terms fees to get that it really was not a big score but that that's that's monday morning quarterbacking i mean the trustees job is the liquid assets of the estate and that's that's true your honor that is true however in this case my client provided a declaration from her accountant indicating that all these being relied on and again this was actually being initiated by the attorney for the schreiber trust so was actually the trustee this was actually an attorney who was a serious of and and he indicated the accountant that some of what he was the attorney was rely on was old information that wasn't correct and you know my client went through frustration trying to prove to the court that that she was not being dishonest that being dollars and and our position is your honor is that the attorneys involved there was no incentive to settle this case because they knew that the house it was it was free and clear so they knew there was a one million dollars  in there and as i indicated my briefing i made numerous attempts to try and minimize attorney fees try and preserve these day from my client and there was no incentive on the other side to do so  and so at the end of the day mr avery got over two hundred thousand dollars this isn't part of that because of the number of of events that transpired in the bankruptcy i mean weren't there numerous appeals in this bankruptcy and client was being treated as as a hostile as as were and so everything was being generated and quite frankly and i hate taking this kind of position but but it  appear like because they knew there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow there was no reason not to bring all these motions let me let me let me take you back to a point net and ask a different question so i understand your theory your theory is they turn the case that that's willison and one point of evidence you have is you say look in collecting this personal property or deed these allegedly omitted assets they spent more than they collected and  also agreed with me that the issue of whether and or not your client's actions justified putting never seen from places not in front of a so we have to assume that her actions did it and what what what part of it in the history of this case isn't there a place for integrity of the system you know i mean because we don't simply do do an analysis of dollars in dollars out and if they don't net say well you don't get your raised one good issue which is the review mirror issue that you know sometimes we spend money and we can't penalize a lawyer for for not having the sufficient  foresight to know that there is going to be a problem but isn't this an integrity of the system case at least for purposes of our analysis here today it is partially that your honor yes it is because in my opinion based on investigation i don't think that judge klein did a thorough enough review of the billings what went through because again i think that this case was worth a lot less we'd be looking at a very different case and and the fact that they basically knew that there was going to be money there's nothing to stop filing motion after motion they could collect the face in collecting fees and as you say turning the case but doesn't have to be some opposition to really turn it to two hundred thousand dollars well there was opposition well that's the problem if it was such a slam dunk case why didn't the debtor just give the assets a liquidated and be done i mean one part of their response is going to be well we had to fight with the debtor i understand that's their argument  of it as i agree is that a lot of the functions of the trustee were actually being done by the trustees attorney and i point that out for example in the sale of the house the attorney was managing all that had someone fly up there to make sure that my client was out of the house that was the eviction process so i lot of the functions when i was reviewing the billings really were functions that mr mann  should have been doing and should be covered by his feet and so if you look at it a lot of what mr avery build was not legal it was it was more administrative stuff so the question the question is judge klein went through the billing statement line by line and eliminated several specific items that you thought were either duplicated or not necessary or overbill and did you raise the question with her at the trial court that the conduct that mr avery was engaging in was and did she consider the argument and rejected as after her review of the billing statement she found it to be reasonable i did raise it your hon it really fell on deaf ears and i think you would have to be there to see it you know and with no disrespect to judge kline she's a fine jurist however for whatever reason she did not like my client and was very clear  all rulings the way she was how issues again considered her a liar cheat and in none of that was true and she didn't get treated as well so the fact that they were coming with these these not and then with mr euro's it was the same thing where he was not only getting paid by the trust and recover his fees for the trust but he was generate all this extra work by having adversary actions and things like that and again at the end of the day i understand that the marshal the assets but the value of the assets were closer to my clients estimate than they were to there's my client estimated about ten thousand dollars that came in i believe it twenty four but they they spent a lot of money to get it with paying for an auction and and they were they were billing it as hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets and it was not worth anything close to it and i think they were billing for other stuff too inclined to know of your your daughter's discharge say i mean they were doing other stuff too including denying you did his discharge the i wasn't going to return a monetary right but part of it too was that because where they sold the assets all the all the creditors are going to get paid out of this sell the house we don't dispute that part of it i mean that part was legitimate you know it was feasting on it by the attorney fees and the trustee fees that's what we're arguing about not that all the creditors got paid but but again if you look and i know it's not for this court but the history of the way this they morphed into the case it was it was a very very simple case it was a case that when you look at the kind of fees that are generated it's shocking to the conscience that you can generate two hundred thousand dollars of billing so i see highlights there were five council says there was only one appeal there were five appeals how many times if you had to see a trustee sell a house twice how many times have and you had interference light and the debtor told the court you moved out and i relied on that and i have used billing judgment because i didn't pull the trigger then she said she's moving out i took her at her word instead we had the appeal of five orders at once which went up to this bet none of them timely that cost mass confusion in the case the fact that she wouldn't move out i didn't know where we were at that point so we started treading water with the seven twenty seven dollars eventually we were able to get this of those appeals dismissed eventually we found another buyer but she still wouldn't move out swear to the marshals come up is is that why your sister and her or the person went down to monitor the election  the big problem here is that the sale was in another district that's the problem so we were using brokers who had no familiarity with the bankruptcy process none the trustee is an accountant he is not an attorney we've got a combative debt or we've got a naked brother in the back yard causing all kinds this is a problem that's a problem this is a problem ok and you have to be dealt with now apparently guys paralegal i sent is very experienced  below of course they did she went through every single objection counsel said that he raised the issue of trust the work being done by an attorney in the court below he did not i challenge guess i'm open for questions but the local rule to the extent he's correct that you know it's just a versus it tourney we don't have a rule we just have a practice that we watch what trustees do and  but the rule can't you're local rules can't change it's substantive law the rules and procedures so i think it's helpful to us a practitioner i'm not sure it's binding on this is a panel if if we were to go there but i'm not i'm not sure we need to think so the only the only other question i had was about the year attendance at the three hundred and forty one me ok isn't that aren't in my district those are typically run by trustees and forty one a meeting as a factual matter as opposed to a you know what made you think you were going to need a deposition because the schedules didn't make sense and i would bet this panel has never seen a case in your career thousand dollars she had julie which she insured at thirty five thousand dollars she's got to deduct five hundred dollars and amended the five hundred dollars she had household goods that she scheduled of five thousand dollars which doesn't appear protect the integrity of the system was that in the trustees view at this time is that an impetus for actions that you took yes and how did i just charge for fraud for not keeping accurate records for failing to explain the loss of assets i mean the findings were very broad she was a bad actor the funny thing is at the beginning the case i wonder i wonder i said that this is a surface case we're going to  address oh yes in terms of the eviction this argument the other be a lawyer to watch if someone's moving out of a house i mean you could hire someone probably at ten dollars an hour to report i don't think the argument was to watch i think it was to be involved if necessary given the prior history ok but what i addressed in my brief your honor was that he sent this assistant up to the bay area to observe to observe and that's that's where i think it was a trustee is duty either personally or to have someone he would designate as part of his fees to do so then i think the tougher question is why was george klein wrong to find the as between those two interpretations of the situation why is there you know i can't give you a really good answer because i came in very late into the case and this was one of the arguments i was going to bring up in terms of what counsel is saying is that part of it is i don't know if the court will accept this or not but on the say it anyway is that she was a victim of the system and i say that because she had several attorneys representing her and she's had attorneys go out of the case at critical times where things were due and things like that there were times that she was improper and she was trying to do the best she can and i'll be very honest because i have personal experience with this is the mystery of us not the easiest guy to get along with ok he would be very obstinate times and one of the arguments i brought up in terms of the whole attorney fees issue was that on numerous occasions i actually used his billings to show you that the conversations that i had with him about attempting to settle the case you know he was saying well why didn't you know just turn in the assets whatever we were trying to do that we were trying to cooperate we're trying to preserve the estate for her you know if you're going to sell off her house st off one thing was mention is that she had elderly parents living in that house and that's why she fought against having a go is that was their home where her mother ended up passing away just before it was sold and the father you know was moved out of the house so that's that's her emotional reason for trying to hang on to the house but but one thing i do i mean i've been a proxy attorney for twenty six years and we settle cases we sell cases it's in the best interest of everybody including the system and i've talked to him and at one point he said i'm go limit my fees to one hundred one thousand dollars if you take it and then ever since then all i did was attempt to get ahold of let's what about it what about it what about it you know there were e mails to or phone calls you know and again as this pot that he was not very open not very cooperate of and when i brought it up in the hearing for the attorney fees i brought that same issue up and i said to the judge but the one hundred thousand he said well she went to gone through with it anyway so why why bother that was his response to it and and i do stand corrected i've i did forget that the schreiber trust had had a mortgage on the property