court was required to apply state law in determining the validity and the effect of the mean and it's the season's position that the court did not properly apply whatever it is development ok i'm going to pay x yet if i don't the following things happen right you have the following rights right to begin with the c c you know right that's the most fundamental piece of all this  says notwithstanding what you know this is how you do things specially in regard to lames ok does it say the language of the c c and r s is irrelevant as to whether it allows for ars it did it did point out what the c c and r s said but then went on to declare public policy arguments and establish that public policy as to create because in bear creek wasn't that a california state court in a foreclosure scenario deciding what the judgment would be that went to foreclosure and here we're talking about wein's arising after there is that final state court rain argument as a policy matter in that context because we've got a live foreclosure action that song going but here isn't this a completely different procedure all posture to the case because we've got a foreclosure judgment for whatever reason your client didn't foreclose and then we've got stuff that happens there after they can still go but for bankruptcy and foreclose on that st lien the reason that they didn't foreclose is the multiple bankruptcy i guess that's ever get that that's the practical problem i'm saying it isn't isn't to say that that's the law isn't it certain overstatement because isn't that the law when we have a pending foreclosure auction as opposed to that's the law on the policy maybe i'm maybe i'm my brain stiffler but i think the policy considerations are totally different in the bear creek situation and here i'm afraid i don't understand why there would be a difference because the order issued by the state court in its judgment for foreclosure is to foreclose the lien right so the living still exists you cannot have an order to foreclose a lien if you take that lien away and i'm i'm asking back question someone to try and think again you're exactly right so you create a lien big deal you want to feel close you have to go to distribution process correct you can there been a court proceeding to get their judgment there's a judgment issued by the state court which includes both the money judgment and an order for for closure of the lien right and so typically as a court when we have a judicial determination of foreclosure the court takes some ownership over the i'm out of the foreclosure yes and that's what the judge and that's what bear creek did the judge said this is the amount isn't it different where the court has other than maybe a cool of interest on that the court has no ownership the court doesn't know what's happening the court is that hesitantly merge with the judgment at that point the judgment set forth the amounts that were due on the date that the judgment was entered so for closure of the ling is this amount as of this day that included amount which accrued after the lien was recorded that continuing lien before the judgment at the time of judgment we've got the period between when the lien was recorded and when the judgment was issued and the amounts that day not the amount that was stated normally originally but didn't necessarily but then i think taking the leap and saying it also includes amounts after the date of the judgment i have conceded all along that the judgment is a static date because the court can't issue a writ including post judgment amounts so the judgment is only as of that date  lean however the assessment not the judicially in the assessment only and is continuing and it secures the entire debt the amounts that accrued before the lien was recorded the amounts yet actually that was not the issue before the deer creek court it was the argument that was presented by mr edwards to the court of appeal and it is the question that they answered i was there mr edwards argued that the lien only security i'm out up until the date that the lien was requested the bear creek case said no the in this case nine hundred and ninety dollars now i'll tell you why it's a different question i think and i think judge taylor i think i'm on the same page with her it's one thing to say in the course of a judicial proceeding that the judge is going to do something that's go liquidate a debt ok everybody's there everybody has knows you show up you hear what's going on you make your arguments ok that's one issue to say the continues they're after is problematic from the c c and r s which we'll talk about me in a minute or two and it's prob answer with all the respect around here you can't say that it's continuing only up until the date of judgment but it doesn't continue there after i die because the very nature of the lien is that it continues shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent if you take away the priority of the lien by merging it with the abstract of judgment it's no longer given the priority of that initial l suddenly it stops it's a continuing lien it's an assessment lien it would be absurd to say that an association loses its priority and loose association necessarily loses priority i think that we have unusual facts in the sense that there's a judgement and then for seven years later and so station hasn't done anything but the association could have recorded a list pendants if it's right about priority and then it also could immediately take that judgement when it's entered and do what actually happened here required an abstract of judgment there it's got to lean and then it could actually also execute on that judgment for for closure and for close pretty quickly i think  situation of continued noncompliance and actually less worried about the bankruptcy because presumably people aren't jumping ahead of them because without court approval and they don't have the opportunity to be heard in the bankruptcy case is the real answer here the substantial delinquency and so all those interests are built into the david sterling at the policies stated by the legislature were to protect homeowners so no we don't want the association to be able to rush in and foreclose on a de minimus debt but here i think it is good policy when they get to that point they meet the struct such tory thresholds that they can do it right away and protect those associations interests i think it's a balancing act and i think it serves both sides of these disputes so your point would be that that in the statutory balance the once you hit the threshold then the balance shifts to the association the balance of the harms that they need to move because they are being harmed by effectively carrying the water for this non  homeowners association dues paying resident and i think they have a duty to do that i mean it's annoying to the benefit of my client in this case that they didn't admittedly but i think they also have a duty to their members that they actually collect the debts when they are  due and take swift action when it's necessary and that's the question of the questions we'll let you know i think this the thing that i'm one of the things i'm struggling with in this case is what is california law court do which gives us some ability to in some circumstances to say we don't care what a court of appeal does but i'm sure i'm very reluctant to do that so why do we get to the long california and why is it appropriate for me to take a different position now and why will it be appropriate for the th circuit to do it i think that the court pointed out the factual differences between our case and bear creek and i think that the court doesn't need to disregard bear creek and just look at the fact that in bear creek they were at the point of foreclosure here we're not dealing with a foreclosure scenario we're dealing with many many years past that of additional are to be interpreted strictly the noticing requirements and all the noticing statutes and act referred to delinquent debts collecting delinquent that's a lien so i think it's supported by the act i think it's supported by the cases that have creek and counsel for the appellant tell me that's not really the point because somehow the david sterling at controls no matter what they say and we'll talk about that in a minute or two but that was of some importance to the two federal judges who looked at this and tried to make sense  just don't give you the same right on a contractual basis to have this continuing link you know that the language is never easily read because people are all specialists and you know we're not sure we're trying to make sense of that but the language dicta that you can have a continuing forever without notice of all the potential accruals i think it's wrong but if it's contractual you know i don't think so because i think i maloney noted the davis sterling act prevails over what the c c in are say so if they are in conflict then the davis ruling act is what has to be followed and strict notice to the homeowners of what they owe what ok then you look at how do these match up and if they are in conflict then the act prevails and i think it prevails in this case but i also don't think that we have the language that existed in bear creek either  very much thank you facts and created some strange law and what if we were to take that ruling and apply it in everyday situations the result would be absurd to be inconvenient it would be absurd let me explain why but let me say it isn't that the only decision on that point i mean that for the same reason you're telling me bear creek is fall law is that diamond heights law is there or is there an