appellants claim against debtor a live in east the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court decision and also declined to hear the argument raise for the first time in front of the district court that an equitable  constructive trust should be imposed upon debtor eleven east in favor of appellate in its essence the bankruptcy court erred in in its conclusion by deviating from holdings of perfected security interest which is avoided by the strong on powers in five forty four as a result in an unsecured claim against the debtors a state the bankruptcy court reached the conclusion that these that the appellant security interest was on perfected and therefore subject to avoidance client's transaction was  farm the initial the initial transaction the loan agreement was with the morgan fund subsequently there was an agreement entered into by eleventh east as  pledge collateral as security for the payment under that agreement and so ultimately what happened here was the pledge or the pledge eleven east files for bankruptcy and then when was a pledge agreement in the eleventh east membership interest in another entity and so based upon that pledge agreement based upon the u c c appellant filed a secure claim the debtor objects to the security saying that the secure that the u c c is seriously misleading fatally defective and therefore ineffective to create this security agreed the bankruptcy court said yes in fact this did not properly describe the collateral and therefore the appellant's security interest is on perfected and because of the strong arm powers of five forty four a that security interest is no longer is where i should say is as on perfected subject to avoidance against the collateral but then w the bankruptcy court does is it concludes that because the on perfected security interest had been avoided it is not a claim at all against the debtors state this is not the holding of the cases that the bankruptcy court relied on nor quite frankly your honour's is it the holding of any case cited either by the court which is the amount of the claim the claim that the claim is filed was a secure claim for eight hundred seventy seven thousand five hundred dollars i believe it serves let's say it's nine hundred thousand dollars right right and that represents the entire amount plus interest that ms guthrie lent to morgan funds correct that nine hundred thousand dollars is the amount of money that your client is legitimately out as it were but i had thought that that up there was going to and the morgan funds were going to get security interest on a whole bunch of popcorn family properties correct your honor that's correct there were there were where any of them perfected your honor i am not aware as to the perfection of those other of whether or not they were perfected no one has raised that with respect to other problem how can you claim one hundred thousand dollars from this bankrupt estate if you have if you have a security interests that have been perfected with respect to the same transaction with respect and on other properties what i do know your honor is that there were two claims filed there are two debtors in this know that you and both the claim against the other debtors claim was expunged appellant claim suspension its entirety as well although we did not appeal that the claim here is that what is against the lebanese is the subject of the appeal only and  was our position that that claim should remain as a secured claim in distant lands and everything you're saying i'm asking you but legally different question i don't see how you can possibly figure out what the amount of your claim is here unless one claim can be determined by the bankruptcy court if the claim had been allowed even as it is to me or every because not only would be completely speculated but we don't we don't know how many properties i mean why why would you obsess about collecting our from on your guarantee from this bankrupt entity with whom you never had any dealings and have no security interest when you have other when you have other properties against you do yes which you do have perfected security interests you're right i think the focus here is that it is a fair certainty based upon the plan and disclosure statement filed by the de that there would be substantial payments to be made on claims in this case whether those claims are secured a run secured so the focus here is primarily the fact that there is an asset a viable s at that is subject to liquidation that would satisfy this claim now clearly claims can be satisfied from multiple sources and all that affects is ultimately the amount that would be paid on a claim that can be fixed by a bankruptcy court or are you suing other guarantors your honor to my knowledge no other guarantors are being sued although i do not represent this is a very peculiar transaction altogether yours it takes it takes a six hundred fifty thousand dollars loan and  gives all the money to a person who is a lawyer who fails to perfect and who after their after will have to do full fails to perfect security interests and you are now and you're now suing the bankrupt estate of an entity that had nothing to do with your client and you're not suing every bachar who's a lawyer presumably he was representing your client in trying to to perfect the these interests the it looks like you're suing somebody who had nothing to do with you and did nothing and did no harm to your client and you're and you're going to try to  matter necessarily that it seeks it from other sources or not what is important here is that this is the entity that pledged its collateral to satisfy the debt and then turns around and says that can understand that the court would be interested in why other parties may or may not be sued to collect on this debt but your honor it fundamentally does not change the fact that one of the parties that this debt can be collected against is debtor eleven east debtor a levy it's pledged its collateral it pledged its collateral because they had already defaulted it in induce them to enter into this amended loan agreement with appell e it it is not eleven east it is more in funds or your honor i don't i believe that eleven east by by pledging its collateral is the it that induced the  beyond that he goes and applies the avoidance principle to an un not only to a non perfected lien but to the claim itself because as your honor pointed out it would prejudice other legitimate claims we have other claims are that's that's true and that there's really no allegations within the way we're ready the briefs below from appellant says to her any connection at all to rico none of that has been raised and again judge gross would also apply the law and apply the standards of avoidance as to an un perfected lean but went further based on his findings of fact that there was the claim itself should be avoided because of the principles governing five forty four which are that when there are other legitimate claims in the bankruptcy estate were actual consideration is given then those claims should not be the bank loans the debtor money all right they might have best up their perfection but they actually loaned money to the debtor not the case here your honor thank you because both the supreme court and the bankruptcy code itself explicitly include in it in the in the instance of the bankruptcy code section one zero two two that a claim against property of the debtor is a claim against the debtors estate so the mere fact that this is a nonrecourse obligation doesn't mean it is not a claim against the debtors estate and in fact under five forty four a the avoiding powers subordinated security interest subordinate to perfected security interests so it is it is incorrect to say that there is no claim against this estate it is simply a matter of saying that this claim isn't subordinate wholly under secured claim which is a sick and just an on secured claim and that was what the bankruptcy court missed and quite frankly that's why there are no decisions that can be found that say if you have an unprotected security interest you have no claim against that debtor it is simply not true you have a claim it is and yes as a matter of curiosity what is the record show about why guthrie took it into her head to invest six hundred fifty thousand dollars in along to morgan funds and nobody ever your honor i believe that there's a relationship that the parties knew each other outside of this context and that's why the money was lent the boppers and the appellant it is it is not reflected in the record then that a group that's why that agreement was originally made and then that's why the bob extended an added the collateral of this debt or eleven east to the mix when they when they entered into the amended loan agreement and your honor that's it's for that reason  that i must urge the court to consider that this is a guarantee this is in essence a non recourse guarantee a guarantee is a claim against this estate there is no mistake of that and that is why the bankers court erred and in taking the leap beyond the cases to which it cited and just extinguished the claim in its entirety thank you thank you very much we know we reserve decision and in the case of