believe last week some additional papers we are probably not going to consider those we consider briefs that are filed under the rules we typically disregard other papers that is submitted so please go ahead thank you appreciate being here to reverse the order of the bankruptcy court where he denied my motion for contempt for the a pelleas violation of the permanent injunction after just charge and the related issues were here to seek an order from you to grant my motion to award damages to include emotional distress pain suffering actual damages future lost earnings lost earnings  dispute can i can i make a quick point you can use your time anyway you like what you appeal was a motion for reconsideration it was denied that's what's normally pretty limited review so you know i you know you can say whatever you want to say but what we have to figure out is whether there was a mistake in connection with the denial of a motion for reconsideration ok one of these mistakes that that we believe is part of the denial is that one of the a pelleas has never even filed a creditors that any theories that were generated were generated because it a dispute was created in this case i characterize what they did as a weapon izing of this arbitration agreement twenty four days or six days before an answer was to close a dispute was created it was never even identified until two thousand and sixteen when appellee branch informed the arbitrator under oath that we were in breach of our loan can get a conditional loan approval that had conditions on it that he got created on march third and the loan approval that we had was from january thirtieth two thousand and fourteen and for we never knew what the specificity of what we were denying but let me tell you why i characterize this is weaponized but you know we can't redo or undo what the arbitrator did that's just not something we have the power to do so again i'm careful about what's before us ok so we're asking that the that the motion be granted to us because in part mr branch has never even made application for this and mr patterson through the trustee purchased the house in two thousand and fifteen the subsequent  ran up a lot of attorney's fees was i don't even know why he would do that other than to run up attorney's fees however with we believe it's also an error for the judge to have  he didn't award mr patterson anything but fees were awarded to mr branch again and again you didn't appeal that which you appealed was a denial of a motion for reconsideration so that's what is really in front of us today again do we don't do whatever you want with your time is your time but you know what you get what you get to argue on a motion a denial of a motion for reconsideration is that was wrong and so that's what you're going to convince us today we're not not not what was below that they didn't get appealed ok ok what was wrong was one is the standing there is no standing we believe for him to receive the distribution and that all of the these these were discharged in branch has never even applied creditors claim but you but the issue that is even more narrow because you're saying that it was a violation of the discharge and therefore they need to be against them ok for the violations after discharge they had notice of the violations or they had notice they were had notice for all the years that they were on both the chapter thirteen and a chapter seven filing and they were aware of us being discharged a pit appeared at practically every bankruptcy hearing and even with that information continued to make collection effort when he was notified of our objection on march third of two thousand and seventeen and we hired an attorney to go in there before us because my husband was in mexico being treated  he continued after even that objection to continue to file more again a judgment debtors examine another court and even but he never served me with the judgment debtors exam i learned about it later but when he went to the court that day too on the judgment dead is exam he asked judge lewis to have me arrested even though i'd never been to for a warrant to go out for my arrest even though i had never been personally served so that shows that's clearly a been a willful violation he had notice and if he wants to invoke the safe harbor rule it then i would say that our motion of march third two thousand and seventeen gave him if you would take twenty one days after that that would be march twenty fourth and yet right away again on april seven motion again for a judgment debtor exam then we filed finally by july in the bankruptcy court where we certainly didn't feel like going again we thought we didn't got rid of mr branch and mr patterson and there they are again and now the judge has found that somehow that the the discharge has been rolled back and has allowed mr patterson to come and collect against us that's who were objecting to i believe that they owe us damages for that if you're close to your seven minutes you want to stop now and again after mr brown yes ok good morning your honour's me please the court michael branch for the police michael branch and gabriel patterson was also present today i appreciate the court's time and in reviewing this matter and can address any questions that are raised the issue of the first motion that the bankruptcy court found where there was no basis for issuing an order to show cause i think is fairly straightforward and clear in the record the bankruptcy court by judge late them issued i think  very detailed analysis of what went on and i believe even prior to that ruling took testimony he took evidence he cross examined me he examined me i was subject to cross examination and i believe in his decision he found that my testimony was credible in two where the issue arose about the judgment debtors example i do want to correct some of the statements here there was only one judgment that is exam that was applied for and i could have applied for it either in the branch lawsuit which was disposed of on an anti slapp basis which was all clearly post petition or the patterson lawsuit i know this is in the brief but the reason i chose the patterson lawsuit was because i had i thought the added stipulation and order that carved all of it out from beginning through arbitration through resolution those are my three resolution covered all out of the courts bankruptcy proceeding carved out of the automatic stay it did carswell and the ultimate interpretation was that i do it i'll say nothing more hok that matter goes outside the bankruptcy what was the purpose of the arbitration i really couldn't couldn't figure that out from the record here and i want to understand this because i think it defines or informs who is returning to what frey ok the arbitration was very simple on a purchase contract it was for a specific performance very simple the appellee was the a broker representing her and investigated it and found out why is this thing being canceled it was nothing other than that we then wanted to proceed with specific performance a for various egregious things and that's not the branch of litigation that separate from that is correct or grants that they shouldn't have until later on the post so there was that cross complaint that the state court said that haas complaint is also subject to arbitration so you get all of the seller's claims and you get all of the buyer's claims and you go to arbitration and resolve them that cross complaint remained we you know there were opportunities i thought gee to get the matter resolved why don't you go make a deal with the seller make a deal with the trustee and the answer is always because we have to resolve this cross complaint attempts to resolve it we're unavailing but that was part of the arbitration as well right so it could have been fully resolved through  arbitration and at the arbitration the arbitrator said since the appellant did not pay her arbitration fees she cannot present her affirmative claims so proceed on specific performance and a cannot present her firm and of claims nonetheless we are defending a cross complaint through arbitration and getting all of that and i didn't result in the dismissal of the cross complaint it did ok i  believe it did i mean i think and the cross complaints filed post petition correct i don't know i think prosecuted was actually the cross complaint was filed before the court you know i'll break the numbers down like this the ok that are warded about eighty thousand dollars yeah i mean that went through and we calculated about other than about sixteen thousand dollars was preposition and we've been but also a federal court case was filed the federal court cases filed an adversarial proceeding against us was filed i believe at one point e it is as far as the arbitration goes i would say it certainly is petition sixty four thousand the bulk of it the vast majority ninety percent plus  is resolving the arbitration because look what you can out of that vast both you're not able to slice that as to your firm of claim for specific performance versus the counter claim that was ultimately dismissed i believe that if i went back i probably could position that anything that you had to spend on that would be not dischargeable that you could go out and go after the debt despite the bankruptcy and despite her discharge i think some of it would be because the adversary proceeding was obviously post petition well no i am talking just about the patterson arbitration and branch the branch matter and that's that's completely different i understand that but i want to focus because most of it's an patterson ok so if there had been nothing if there would have been no cross claim are you saying the fact that she actually defended post petition gave rise in on this charge ability no not at all let me see if i can answer this way i think if this is what you're trying to get  your honor if there was not a cross complaint i don't think we would have needed the arbitration i think we would have made a deal with the trustee wrap it up and been done with it and and the reason that i say this is you know we looked at why do we continue to go through other other of the defendants too who are also subject to her cross complaint in arbitration her cross complaints which were resolved in arbitration how can we get out of this if you make a deal with the trustee for a specific performance and this all goes away if the trustee participate in europe or treasury just just realize that you've got to finish up with her and then i'll do what i need against the trustee in the trustees of turning ok but part of what we were trying to also convey he the trustees attorney was a part of the arbitration because there were turnover orders i believe that were not complied with anything that paterson need to do to continue to purchase this property whether it was through a no specific performance award or through the bankruptcy trustee there were still things that book needed to be done they needed a water heater strap then they needed you know just the various things before the funding of the loan at that place the loan company the bank wanted to see simple things two simple things c o two monitor plugged in and the water heater strap in it's an older house we've got to strap in the water heater that day everybody makes arrangements and the water heaters gone removed taken out so there was a series of things that prevented this the funding of the loan he had pre approval but the funding of the loan was contingent upon i think those two things you want to address really quickly the question i was putting to misc ott that you know this really is just an appeal for a motion for reconsideration out i'm going to tell us why that should be affirmed because there's no new facts and the new law and everything that was presented when she moved to reconsider everything had been presented before there was not and there was no confusion about the judge's disposition meaning he began the hearing thinking well maybe i need some further briefing and ended the thank you thank you very much thanks you have about seven and a half minutes roughly so please go ahead only one j jacks was taken however a prior was held on three three seventeen so yes it's true that there was only one j jacks that he applied for but he had gone into the branch courts the one where i had filed for the litigation privilege for how could he be putting up a list pendants on our home while he hasn't even made a down payment he could have bought the home all he had to do was fund the escrow when i sent a note to  be canceled its because they sued us and ask oh didn't cancel it stayed open for two years at no point was it funded so that's that's just not true as far as a cross complaint was  partition and it was filed five months after or it was filed in october and our petition was filed in november as far as the going to arbitration why would you go to arbitration to a year after your client has bought the property as far as a water heater not being in the house we were not in possession and he more it just so happened that the same time that we converted to a seven the attorney that we had then forgot to add our homestead at so when i asked him about it and i asked the trustees attorney about it they said too bad it's too late and i return it the judge said what you have to do then is file a motion to get it back eroni asli we filed it in the superior court and they removed it over when we file for the writ it was to get our homestead back i can't imagine what a tourney fees he would have or that it had to be served on everybody but it was to the trustee when we went to the district court in march in april of two thousand and seventeen and filed eroni asli thought we were doing a removeable to get it out to get his collection efforts out of the state court and into we thought it had to be the district court but we found it had to go back to bankruptcy that's why in finally in july which is a few months later i filed for the motion for reconsideration of the rollback of our discharge all of the f the including the branch litigation which all arises because they would not produce the down payment what they did is tie up the property appear to be a b f p and have me defend myself run up litigation costs for himself as i'm defending myself but claim them for himself because they they tie up the property and then don't do anything if he wants arbitration in july and he wants a waiver in january then why didn't he do anything more so i made the effort and i filed for the litigation privilege because the judge had signed the stipulation to resolve the lawsuit i believe that the lawsuit would be resolved and i had an expert tell me and put it in these papers that it's a failure of consideration he doesn't even have the standing for the specific performance they never made a down payment can you imagine just accepting it or we don't make a down payment you're sued we're going to do all this penance now i can't sell to anybody i can't refile a bankruptcy i'm stuck until november and he's not doing anything about either bind the house or show us where there's a down payment we're just twisting in the wind and every time we do something he gins it up as an attorney fees so it's an appearance of of legal fees ok they've been excepted and he's been very successful in the san diego courts but in those were our efforts which i believe were foreseeable that reasonably contemplated at the time of that they wanted the arbitration to go forward that if someone might have jacked to you just taking their home without a down payment and in my of efforts to object they now are attorneys fees i don't know what he really defended he went to way he went to an arbitration and he tried to enforce a four hundred forty nine thousand dollar contract after his client had already paid four hundred sixty five thousand dollars to the trustee for us this is cognitive dissonance someone can take my house but they don't make a down payment they demand arbitration but they wait two years to do anything he says he's trying to make deals with the trustee and whatever it was but we're being billed like eighty thousand dollars and none of these are post petition or all of these were really fairly contemplated at the time that the arbitration clause was triggered by them he could have just made the downpayment astro was open for over two years they opened a new one in two thousand and sixteen i believe with ty cor so i think it's very false to argue that i stopped and he never made a downpayment imagine yourselves in that position it's your only home you're in your seventy's you're my husband was very ill still is we go to sell our house and everything is going beautifully six days before escrow is to close we're finally told we're in breach and so now we want to sell a house to somebody else oh just pummels can't do it so we're twisting for these past several years finally thought it was over on december thirtieth and well at least we won't have to deal with these people that make us crazy with their appearance of a legitimate lawsuit but they don't do anything about it so whatever we do to try to make something happen to resolve it comes back against us it's still an astonishing position to be in and i certainly hope that this court can be persuaded that that his debt was all of the debts to either of them a roast pre partition we were not in bankruptcy even when we filed our cross we didn't file it for we couldn't believe that this young man that we thought was going so well even we just couldn't even believe we were in that position to tell you the truth so i do i know i've repeated myself now but position is really all of those activities were fairly contemplated and when at the time that he triggered all these arbitration requests when he could have just funded the loan or made the down payment however we're now in this position where he's managed to gin up all these fees and his client has got the house we're out of our house we're out of our savings we can't even afford to live in the united states he wants to have a collection against me my career is behind me i don't manage a law office i mean we take care of my husband this is this is driving us crazy  thank you very much appreciate your time in your good arguments the case is a bit thank you