appeal in this case there are several underlying themes of the appeal in our view and the first thing is that it's illinois law that creates and defines the ten c by the entirety exemption opening brief and then particular one of the major issues that has concerned osc is that the trust agreement reserve powers in claude's which is the pollies husband to do is a critical part but the statute also requires the following things the tenants have to be married to each other we got to have to on an equal under five an undervote interest they must have a right of survivorship that's the essential feature of a tendency by the entirety and in this case if you take a look at one of the provisions that we've identified in the trust agreement the trust agreement itself controls the disposition of the property and does so in consistently with the app ellie's right of survivorsh the trust agreement also gives claude the right to terminate the trust agreement unilaterally and take back all the property to himself what the trust agreement does so the problem here is that the trust agreement is inconsistent with rights created under the statute even though the statute doesn't medically allow tenancy by the entirety of property in a trust you can have a essentially a beneficial tenet by the entirety that's not something we've ever quibble with the problem here is that this particular trust agreement does not meet those tests and it is inconsistent i've laid out pages a lot and through fourteen all of the inconsistent features i don't think there's any need to go through them here so let's get to the third theme the third theme is that the court should look to the substance of the trust agreement and not to the form of the title whether the trust agreement sow's its tenancy by the entirety or not or how it titles itself does not control what it does difference it does make a difference because if a creditor such as my client if i mentor a bubble time i don't know if you want me to finish the thought i led ok a creditor like my client should have a trust provisions why do you why you why do you think the trust provisions take proceedings because expresses the intent of what these parties want to tell you see by the entirety has certain characteristics and if the trust agreement says you know this we have this tendency to tidy why aren't the rules governing tensas by any why aren't they why can't they take proceedings over other provisions in the trust and then what's the point of the trust agreement i mean the if the parties agree to do something if their greed or to adjust their rights in a certain way only to say oh that doesn't count because the statute says something else what have we accomplished by putting the property into this vehicle namely the trust but it also contains that instrument contains a specific clause that says says nothing in this instrument should be construed as conflicting with the statute and that that's where we have a problem with what the district court and the  problem there was and this is very similar to the to the issue that was raised in the stanky case that we that we talked about the problem there is that if you only look at the one particular clause in the trust agreement and ignore the rest of the clause you're not interpret ing a contractor in this case the trust agreement in the manner of the illinois water requires you to internal know that it sent the best kind of a clause that says to the extent that there's anything inconsistent in this instrument inconsistent the statute the statute controls that that's an expression of the parties the settlers in ten said is an expression of intent and it's equally an expression of intent all of the things that the subtle wars put into the trust agreement that are in the casino those are overridden by the specific clause that says they're overweight and that's what the district court found and our position is that you cannot read one sentence or one clause in an agreement so you want to split everything i want us to read that particular class out of the agreement that the parties really didn't intend to conform the instrument to the statute even though that's what that provision says that provision definitely says that i think that if you just take a look at the specificity with which the parties identified what their rights are it is incredibly inconsistent with what tenancy by the entirety requires and this is you know this call it a savings clause i guess but the savings clause i don't think is official to say of something that was specifically designed to do something other than what the statute required ok thank you on tenants by the entirety and analyzed the trust in that context not only does the trust indicate its intention to conform with the statute but the statute also contains a provision that anything inconsistent with the statute is overridden by the statute and the trust was restated as your honour's noted the same day that the property was transferred into it in order to make that trust conform with the statute and both lower courts analyzed it that way and found no inconsistency some of the provisions that that loving thought points to are being taken out of context and some of those provisions relate only in the event that one of the husband or wife dies and the bankruptcy court specifically said that those provisions that would take effect and do something after one of them dies the tenants by the entirety was already broken by the death therefore those clauses are not inconsistent because they wouldn't take effect until that time while leventhal says that that the trust needs to be considered as a whole as inconsistent that again is a standard the both lower court considering the trust as a whole it was intended to conform with the statute the deed itself is paramount under illinois law and it had the required language that the trustee was holding it for the benefit of both husband and wife as tenants by the entirety nothing in the trust provision is going to alter that deed in fact even when love and paul talks about the trust being revo the case of revocation whoever took the deed is still holding it for the benefit of husband and wife as tenants by the entirety language of the deed doesn't change bankruptcy court noted at all in both lower court the burden was on the loving thought to convince the court to show that the trust was inconsistent and by both lower court's analysis he didn't meet that burden when the case comes here he wants this court to review it didn't ov but he doesn't provide any convincing argument or show in any way how it is or court ruled improperly or incorrectly he wants this court to create a new law but doesn't give this court in the background in which t the confirmation of the chapter thirteen plan moats the appeal this was brought up in my motion to dismiss it was brought up in the briefs that happen after the case has already on appeal before the district court counted it now yes and after the district court rule so where was jurisdiction at that point let me go back to the beginning love until noon the underlying bankruptcy case that he needed to bring to objections t that he needed to bring to objections to again he filed two separate objections he objected to the claim of the exemption and he objected to confirmation of the plan neither objection would stand on its own it wouldn't do enough for so he needed to do both the bankruptcy court overruled both objections love and all appealed both objections but the underlying plan had not been confirmed so the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the bankruptcy court's order overruling the confirmation objection the district court only considered the order overruling the exemption election and the district court ruled and found that loving thought had not met his burden that the debtor was entitled to the exemption and the district court affirmed that order at that point the case returned it  still continued to proceed but the case went back to the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy court after the district court ruled and closed its case the bankruptcy court held a hearing on confirmation both parties were attending the court confirmed the case so that the district court only had jurisdiction over the appeal of the you know the extent that it challenge the exemption yes not to the extent that  challenge to the overruling of the objection to the plan correct and on the appeal to decide or to the bankruptcy court was free to go ahead and issue an order confirming the plan while that appeal is pending yes but it chose not to  the parties agreed to wait for the district court opinion so there was so the chronology is that the plan doesn't get confirmed until after the district court is done ruling there's nothing automatically that would stay confirmation unless somebody requested it and nobody did there was no stay there was no stay but everybody did wait apparently and until after the district court had had ruled yes meanwhile the debtor made her payments and at the point when the district court ruled the case went back to the bankruptcy court for confirmation the trustee recommended confirmation that all of the requirements for confirmation were met the bankruptcy court was aware of the district court's ruling the standards of cash from ation were met include the findings of the bankruptcy court were that the plan met all of the requirements of confirmation which included the best interest tax which included the exempt religious or executed the exempt real estate because it was example that order of confirmation was not appealed love until never renewed his objection to confirmation on that basis and the objection to the exemption can't stand the law the court the bankruptcy courts ruling in the district courts affirm and such were incorporated into confirmation that the the tenants by the entirety home was exempt from the estate was not factored into the confirmation task and the case was moot even if the court would be reluctant to take that action now that was an appeal of a denial of a motion to modify a chapter thirteen plan and in that case the the five year payment plan and that case had expired by the time the case reached this court this court never the last it's not moved the trustee in that case had filed a motion to modify because under the bankruptcy statute which has i believe thirteen twenty nine eg it's pacifically lots of credit or move to modify a plan after it's confirmation but before completion of payments now in our case it's not as severe as and tamarod or germ or pardon me because the five year payment plan has not yet expired so under the bankruptcy statute we still have the