go ahead please thank you just for us we're here on a on a related appeal we had another appeal that was decided by the panel in december and different issues related to a motion for relief after that motion for relief order was appealed  bankruptcy ended up dismissing the chapter eleven case i've been doing this stuff for almost forty years and this was one of the most unusual dismissals i've ever seen a hearing that was calendared year was a disclosure statement hearing on the first proposed disclosure statement by the debtor there was only one objects and filed to that disclosure statement by a mortgage creditor on there was a discussion between the court and debtors counsel about that creditor and the objects and when the debtors counsel attempted to point out that the court's concerns had sensually been dealt with in the proposed  plan to let this creditor on one piece of property have the property back the court went into some other discussion and then sort of out of the blue said ok that's it i'm dismissing this case possibility at the scheduling scheduling a status conference africa out with the name of the conferences but the initial notice the standard formula just does say that you know i didn't i didn't see that here your honor but they do talk about that being a possibility but attached it to the appendix in exhibit and both the calendars to page calendars for the hearing where this occurred along with the court's tentative ruling and dismissal was not mentioned in either one of those in the transcript itself which is exhibit eleven the word dismissal doesn't even come up until the very end of the hearing and then on the very last page of the the transcript the bankruptcy judge said ok this is dismissed that was it i mean no warning at all we've pointed out in the papers that notice is required for dismissal it's opportunity to respond not that they're going to negate the dismissal but i think due process requires that meaningful opportunity to at least respond to the threat or the possibility of dismissal and th creditor bayview mortgage that cements and that was discussed in the hearing the other properties still held by the debtor and they're still litigation going on over that property so they still have that they're still hoping i mean the plan all along was to get some moneys in to rehab rehabilitate and repair the property and then sell it for a profit they had initially been told by the original lender washington mutual bank that they would talk about pay off options and a discounted payoff option based on this the condition of the property at that time and the debtor attempted to negotiate couldn't get anywhere with that creditor ended up filing that chapter eleven after those negotiations had taken place the loan the first trustee loan was assigned in  peculiar receivership type of proceedings that were going on with banks in the early two thousand and six from washington mutual to chase bank so chase bank actually took over the loan almost four years after the de or had acquired the property the debtor didn't file the chapter eleven until two thousand and seventeen over seven years after it acquired the property so this wasn't a flippin file kind of case they is the twenty five percent property that was released to the lender yes ok yes i believe so and i ask that the judge made much of the involvement of mr praise if i'm correct if i'm pronouncing that correctly roman praise in this and other cases what he had tell us about that i didn't see much in the record about tying him to other cases and he clearly signed the petition for this debtor but the judge was apparently aware of other cases he'd been involved in this was the kind of the subject of the related appeal before this annele where relief was sought under three sixty two d four which deals with transfers are multiple filings and if those are proven that can give a basis for relieve pain in ram order against the property that can apply not only to the property and this debtor but any theater debt or any future owner and so that was the issue that was raised by chase bank in its motion for relief that there had been other transfers not really transfers perceval but bankruptcy's filed relating to deeds  trust that were clase to guess the property so apparently mr praise and been seen in trying to negotiate with the creditor had contacted or made in a rainstorm and with another company to help them negotiate with the creditor with the bank at the time and the creditor that company had then filed apparently filed bankruptcy as relating to this property but mr praise the president of benzene and benzene weren't involved in any of those and in fact the declaration that was submitted in the other proceeding the motion for relief proceeding indicated he didn't know any about thing about those didn't have anything to do with those bankruptcy filings they want by ham warrant signed by am went by this debtor and as soon as they found out that this company was doing that that they immediately terminated their relationship and all of those transfers were reconvened back so those multiple transfers were allegations i mean one of the main things that we raised on appeal was the bank never proved anything about any of those multiple filings nothing no bankruptcy case number no bankruptcy debtor no status how it affected their four closer or the loan or anything like that so there wasn't any basis to make any of the findings the judge didn't make anyway i don't think that was the gist of it i don't think there was there was no evidence or basis no proper basis and in fact the motion for relief brought by that creditor which was chase bank on the other piece of property contained a number of misstatements in it like they'd already held the foreclosure sale they had already acquired title that well we're not going to determine that now ya know that's that's all get on and on under the water and in fact in the related appeal the that horse in of the order of the three sixty two d for portion was vacated by the panel and remained it back to the bankruptcy court so you know i think beyond the notice issue which is you know stands out pretty precise significantly here is the best interest is shu you know under section one when to be if the court's going to consider dismissal it has to consider all the alternatives with whether to convert the case to chapter seven whether to appoint a trustee or an examiner and determine from that list of alternatives which is in the best interest of both the creditors and the estate and the debtor it's all three of those parties are linked together there and here it doesn't look like the court made any determination of best interest we've cited to a couple of the  bappa pinions sullivan and grego that say regardless of what's requested the court has an independent obligation to conduct that analysis to make that determination that yes dismissal is in the best interest of all of these are b s and then after that then the court can grant dismissal so that never happened similar to the other related appeal the court didn't make any findings of fact or conclusions of law at all it was a discussion here in the beginning of a relatively short hearing it looks to me like it didn't even last fifteen minutes but we're talking about an objection by a creditor and how the plans are going to deal with it then we get to dismissal and ok that's it i'm dismissing it no findings no conclusions nothing there for the court to point out that you know is best interest yes dismissal is warranted and nothing like that and that was a problem from the earlier related appeal and one of the reasons why that order was vacated there you could imagine a situation where the disclosure statement might be the perfect time for the court to remark upon or make findings about the integrity of a case because that's the time when the debtor or the proponent these are the debtor is sort of weighing everything bare and here is what you need to know about the background here's what we're going to do by your position is that that simply never happened right and what happened was just  dismissal without that kind of sifting and weighing and discussion and opportunity and i mean that the judge could have gone through listed hey i think this case even without the notice issue which i don't necessarily think can be overcome but in the evidence reports you know that a i think this is a bad case and here's a law i yearn to three four and why i'm kind of stopping is because i think it's and it's analogous to what you said about the duty to consider the best interests you know disclosure statements are one of the few places where we're supposed to consider independently whether there's enough information and whether this process has integrity so it's conceivable right in your honor you know that to it a lot of these hearings there's a proposed plan  submitted they don't always get either dealt with or confirmed and if there are issues or objections we're going to go amend it come back and we've got our first amended plan as it are no question about it so we get a chance to correct those things and the de attorney here asked to do that didn't get that shot and so he walks in thinking ok i've got a tentative here with a couple of things that need to be stuck in my plan or disclosure statement all amended i'll clean that up fix it come back to you show you what it should say what will satisfy you but then we get sidetracked in oh i'm throwing out anyway and that didn't make any sense on those grounds either so it could have been an opportunity i know the court so a sponte dismiss you know and wealth of course but even in those cases there's got to be some advance notice and some meaningful opportunity for the debtor to respond or r ut and if there isn't even a sou a spontaneous not going to stan's i think here that all the court needed to do was either take some time or more properly to state at the hearing  look i've got some problems not only with what you're presenting but with this whole case and the way it's been prosecuted i'm put i'm putting this on a no i see the dismiss come back and thirty days i'm going to dismiss that you know whatever and that would have been the appropriate way to go under these proceedings in these procedures but not without and here well charitably she did that in a very truncated manners she came to conclusion it was a fraud and she also was fairly specific that you had your trust chance to come here and show me how mr praise was going to raise five hundred thousand dollars reading from the disclosure statement there's nothing there you're just smoke and she's she's come to the conclusion that's fraud so i hear you saying it is that it's not wrong for to conclude that it's fraud but she needs to get give you a chance to explain why it isn't and preferably to explain it better why it is fraud in her opinion absolutely we need to get the opportunity and notice but i would dispute that there was any fraud at all this case was that that's going to the argument and the but i mean when you say there was no basis in the record she you read and you can read the tone and from her experience with that case she's concluding that if you want to walk it back to be a little more charitable that it's not feasible it will never be feasible and that you have not taken the steps to shown that it will ever be feasible based upon whatever happened which unfortunately does not appear to be in the record and i know that she felt that way at that time i mean obviously something happened here but if i had been there or if other council had been there i could have easily shown  why it was feasible i mean this case wasn't even six months old i mean they were waiting for an investor to come up with the money to repair and rehab the op well i don't know that really helps because there's other things that there's not a record like how many payments have been made that's usually a first question we want to ask because if there's been a lengthy time when no payments have been made there's nothing i don't know there's a number set out for the value the value is conveniently much higher than the the stated that but that was the case for the bayview property too and that's been surrendered so there's a lot of stuff here and it kind of gets to your point that we just don't know it may well be there just needs may need to be one who really i mean the let you respond to that then your time is up your you a payments did come up but at the same time i have to point out there was over a three million dollar equity kosha maybe protecting this creditor here and that creditor took over the loan on an assignment after there had already been a default so it's kind of like oh you bought a house you know there's holes in the roof then when it rains you come and complain that there's holes in the roof you bought the house  there still no we gave the pay i'm sorry is there still an obligation to pay i think there's an obligation to at least pay often in bankruptcy doesn't the equity cushion provide the attic or protection and that's what i'm getting at i've taken too much your time but i don't think we're going to a