if the court had the equitable power to appoint a receiver whether it was in the contractual language or not then what what is the value of having it what what work does having case and give more weight to the concurrent for not being on our shopping some so what wait should the language be given so if you have a situation where there is no contractual language of that nature we know what a court would do when w receiver receivership is requested here we've got the language is it a plus factor does it shift the burden what what is the point of it if you say it's not sufficient in and of itself or the appointment of a receiver argument that's right we're not challenging the article three we're just talking in the discretion of the you can see if it's not an injunction there's no if there's not any injunction if it's not an injunction to my district judge on their running out time has run out ok or to preserve some time all right instead said the evidence of default is that in the terms of the loan agreement a loan had a maturity date of february two thousand and twelve bar did not pay that amount on or before the those payments only went interest and it did not affect the principle of this was an interest only loan and thus the payments any debt service payments only reduce the interest so the allegation that the loan might be quote unquote current is actually not relevant to and does not impact in any way to courts finding that there was yeah i have to tell you i can't remember ever being involved in a receivership where the original owners of the company or the property got the property back seems to be a rather final dramatic step would you disagree with that statement well here likelihood of foreclosure i believe is very high and basically inevitable it is the first step towards losing property yes however the case of states where there is a contractual right and the parties agreed should judge actually found that lender had presented evidence that may entitle it to a point in a receiver under the equitable factors the court chose to address it to base is decision on the strong lacked lack of maintenance low occupancy there is sufficient evidence just under the equities in the record to support an appointment receiver and it's necessary because whether it's an injunction but the statue can't resolve the constitutional question of whether a magistrate can have this authority and it seems like a fairly significant power to have a lot of article saw what the scope of the article three power was so is there any authority that says the magistrate exercised this kind of power that addresses the constitutional question because there are certain things magistrates constitutionally cannot do i would yours but this sort of i'm not forcing of one of the parties of its property oh and putting it under the authority of an officer of the court is really an arm of the court it's a it's it does seem to me to be a really dramatic step and and i agree with your earlier sort of assessment in this case as i think in most cases it's the beginning of the end of the line for that particular party why should that be as a matter of contractual entitlement and the court shouldn't have look at anything else in other words the court it seems to me become sort of put in service of one of the two parties at that point contractual language however in this particular case we presented ample evidence of the equities and the court did not have if you didn't have the equities you're saying that all it has to look at is the contractual language and the fact of the default so one could but you say there's discretion so one court could appoint a receiver another court could say no i'm not going to and both would be within their discretion on exactly the same receiver will divest or do various things with the property as the lender directs language to that effect i thought that was one which to that effect and i  wondering what's court supposed to do with that since the receivers part of the court so your honor the court which in this case has not yet  or may not be specific contractual language giving the lender certain powers over the receiver you're not arguing for that at this point now only arguing that of one less is because of questions you turn to howard asked about what effect we give the language of the contract if if i follow you you're suggesting that notwithstanding the contractual language the district the magistrate judge or it was a message district court would be entitled to the dining receiver ship on equitable grounds if there was no contract no even even in the case even in the face of the contractual language you're not denying that th but i would like to ask the parties if you'd be willing to give a some supplemental briefing on this article three question the judge there and has raised that is whether a magistrate judge  those are why can't i don't think that follows why can't they argue that you wave the right to make the arguments that you're making no by the contract because first of all because it's not the contract is the mortgage w