am realizing upon its so called in ram lights which survived and passed through the bankruptcy case on affected by the debtors chapter seven discharge in virtually every secured consumer lending arrangement the secured creditor loans on the tool condition that you have recourse against the debtors personally and a security interest in the collateral in the property in this case there was a purchase money security interest that was given so the also the dollars when they were purchased and they agreed that they would pay that money back personally and they also agreed that the party who became the r m would have a security interest in that property can i ask you this if post this charge portion how would you have been forced in other words if all you wanted was repossession so you aren't paying you haven't met your payments you stop making the payments post discharge voluntary payments pose this charge now we're going to take the  bankruptcy court and then bap on a somewhat different theory said wait a minute you've got you're basically doing a reaffirmation agreement in five twenty four silly way that all of these pursue general protections for a debtor and now you're turning around those discharge and coming in and basically getting what is you know fact a a reaffirmation agreement well i would respectfully disagree i know you do but i'm trying to understand i mean that's clearly what the agreement which creates a new financial liability as opposed to repossession rights you've already told me post this charge you still have the right to get the in ram to get the we get the ram to get the property where is the authority to different ways that's what i'm trying to get clear where this argument is that saddam wrestling with the i understand that you're speaking the jewelry that's what you're saying right well what you want is the jewelry that's the relies on the you know the right of repossession means taking the thing all right and my understanding is that you don't want this thing you want money you want them to pay off the balance of the financial obligation which is what they just got discharged in the bankruptcy we didn't want the thing we asked for the thing back to you know sunday refuse they refused so did you have any cause of action to bring against them want to retain it so what we had to do then despite the fact we did try to enter into a reaffirmation agreement this notion that we did something several tricks surreptitiously is just false we proposed a reaffirmation agreement that was in perfect compliance section five twenty four  if they had signed it and they said they were going to it would have been filed with the bankruptcy court it would have come into bankruptcy court scrutiny we would welcome that they blew us off at that point there's no agreement they want to hold on to but so what should we do we said listen between a pre discharge and post the storage agreement of the kind he described why is one a reaffirmation subject to the bankruptcy act on the subsequent subsequent one of them because on a reaffirmation the debt you know on a on what happened here opposed to short property retention agreement the consideration is not the discharge debt the consideration is your surviving in ram rights which may vary the need be different from maybe value to different from the discharge that you may for example judge have a situation where the discharge debt is ten thousand dollars but the in ram writes the fear value the property is only three thousand if we had entered into a post to our property retention agreements were are in ram rights fairly valued were only three thousand dollars and we had proposed an agreement with them for ten thousand dollars i e the amount of the discharged that that would have been a violation of the shark injunction this was not a violation of the discharge injunction because as we showed by evidence by testimony the value of our in ram rights exceeded the amount of the discharge debt at that point the debt is only destruction extent we can pursue the debt is partially it still remains to establish what the upper limit is that we can receive in realizing upon those in ram right so of necessity here the thing that's right even if they are no longer responsible for paying for it that's right can post discharge or keep it as long as they pay for as long as they are paying for the fair value of the happens and you're saying that if they had continued to make payments in accord with the original loan agreement and that if one of your own thought that didn't reflect the value of the jewelry they could have sued to replace last what what they could have done under a so called parker retention right to the extent that it exists is unfortunately in continued to pay and met their parker level payments which would have been measured by the original loan agreement present really is that correct yes if they were ok so if they continued voluntarily to make those back in and get the jewelry guess what you would if they were they'd taken it down on a three thousand dollars ring they paid off twenty nine hundred is only one hundred but they didn't make the final payment you get to keep the twenty nine hundred posts discharge payment string with payments could receive by exercising again right amount up to the amount of the discharge that we couldn't take back a copy some collateral when it was only five thousand dollars left to be paid on it and sell it for fifteen thousand dollars and keep the ten thousand dollars difference although you get additional charge of the debt the debt still remains for different purposes including stablish ing what think upper cap is if you will on the amount that you can receive in realizing upon point they have separate existence separate apart from the discharge that they can't have independent consideration for a new agreement the problem with saying that parker allows you to have a retention right in that setting in you have you have a situation here george where there is a there was a panel of this court and i know you can't reverse it that cave on in private in construction the section five hundred two is actually  and whenever you give a construction like that to a provision of a comprehensive integrated code whenever there after there's another issue that is related to that point that is an outgrowth of that point that is a da a vision a point you will almost of necessity have a bizarre result and that would be the result here parker is imported into this context into this setting it was set aside that entire line of jurisdiction of jurisprudence i'm sorry life as as applied to this context as applied to this setting yes but you don't need to go that far judge you can stop at the point where you say you don't have a parker retention right if one could ever be found which is where the debtors are in monetary  is up to the amount of the destruction in the banks judge was on the right track on that point he said we need to value what the collateral is worth in we presented evidence we had testimony about the value of the collateral ultimately he never concluded what the value of the property was and that alone is clear and that alone is sufficient to warrant if at the very least every man but then he went he went ahead and he said i need to also discuss whether there's a possibility these vendors h originates from three cases are rising in are rising under or related to it doesn't arise you know bankruptcy case because the conduct complained of here was conduct that took place not only after the bankruptcy case but term of art which has been defined to say that it's related to only if it has some effect on the back of the state being administered so under that term of art i've related to it cannot be related to invision it does not ar he knew he was on the right track he knew that they the considerations that p d p our way was the in ram rights he knew that we couldn't be found to be in violation of the destruction junction he never found that we were in violation of the destruction if he had done so he would have had continuing jurisdiction to do that he didn't have continuing jurisdiction to create out of a federal cause of action force the only remedy is contempt a state law res says the parker rationale which is based exclusively on a quote from language from the bankruptcy court in massachusetts again though which was adopted forswear by the ninth circuit nathan decision which was in turn adopted foursquare in florida that that circular reasoning if you read the first case from the first circuit which has some later scholarly jurist is the scholarly work on this issue what you will find is that parker's parker's rationale fault and then start making payments on your back getting back on track with no new agreement being entered into to forestall repossession or they could resume famous and then the payment stream would have been extended dispute about whether they want to give up the right repossession you know the words if there was a new consideration could they have posed this church revived a personal liability debt the wound up making them make the jury in fact the jury had appreciated so they wanted to keep it and they wanted basically to keep it under the parker concept by just simply reviving the payment stream that they had gotten and difficulty with now they've been cleared out of all their debts and now they're going to focus on this jewelry and they're going to pay for it could your position because the baptisms as long as there's anything having to do with the previous sturgiss at all in part in whole or in part the subject of the discharge then it's all subject to five twenty four c that's correct interpretation on it so you're saying then the law is the same joy over and as long as the same people and as long as  making payments by necessity it's what was involved in the bankruptcy was the subject matter therefore there is no agreement that can be entered into this and forcible for person that's correct jonathan and if you look at the think that they have really given up that right they always have to have that right yet but they're not giving it up and exchange for an agreement a six thousand dollars they are not giving up the right because if the problem that's why you asked about five twenty four c one because five twenty four basically all of those protections you know that they have to be approved by the bankruptcy georgians are always disclosures of have to be made on its face assumes it all takes place pretty discharge so therefore that whole regime by its by the terms of the statute itself apply pretty discharge now you have a situation where under hold onto it they can forestall repossession by continuing to make the claim correct ok so but there's no there's no personal liability about on it it's just they're exercising and in ram right  even if it appreciated under parker they could continue to make the payments based on the lower valuation and for and force all republicans that are correct correct or theoretically go on refinance the we're now dealing with whether there is new consideration