good morning good morning wood was planned does not comply with the out suit priority rule and i've wrestled in my head out to exactly approach this with each of the three of you and and i think the three of you have a very good understanding of what this issue is the fundamental issue that is out there is whether or not the changes that were made to the bankruptcy code in two thousand and five affected way a woman aged the absolute priority rules o individual chapter eleven debtors or whether it did and we thought that you had the problem because everything that has that could be said on the subject has been written well that and i come here with all due respect  that might be the case with those point i don't know that that was the case with get the both initial point so she could propose a plan that the pays you a hundred percent of your move or the next thirty years well with that big separable to you obviously not you say she and the creditors you're the only one that objecting to the plan right now and if i read the record correctly she's filed for five plans have you been totally unable to negotiate it i mean let's not project into the future something that hasn't happened in the past what would change going forward that would allow a consensual consensual plan from your client's perspective other than one hundred percent payment nothing at this point  no no what i said earlier i don't know that that's always been the case but this is going on for quite a while and i think the parties are very firmly entrenched i don't know that that would be the case all the way through the process and i guess my other question is i don't know nebraska what you're saying is because you objected to her be chapter seven and you're objecting to anything short of one hundred percent in chapter eleven so basically what you're saying is it's more if you're concerned she's not yeah i mean yeah it is the end of the road yes and not to put too fine a point on it but the elliotts have a lien on the residence don't think so so you're the only obstacle to confirmation if you're not blocking position we control the case it be unless you get what your demands are well you know no i agree with you and let me make sure i understand the object of the debt this is not an obligation that was extended time practically to dr wentworth it was a guarantee of her spouse's business that is that correct this ongoing issue as to how much disposable income dr woodward should devote to the payment runs to get brothers and and there's been a couple of issues that the bankruptcy court didn't help us out a whole lot with obviously disposable income is income minus reasonable unnecessary expenses the bankruptcy court didn't provide us with a whole lot of guidance is how how we judge shelby you know determine what dr woodward income was from his comments and from times depending upon which period i captured i could i could manipulate her income by three or four thousand dollars a month if i did a level monster would be this enough i did twelve months it might swing significant amounts because a doctor would have draws in someone's if the more one of the most recent operative words i saw show the forty five thousand drawings and one more but what how would you propose to apply a formula then to somebody who has draws i mean there has to be some way to do it over a period of time so that someone knows how much needs to be paid what would your proposal be in terms of how that should be calculated i really think the best way to do it is the way that we indicated to the court would all be done to utilize for income tax refund i think that's really the best way to calculate what her income is in the best way to compare it from your tax year two thousand and thirteen to tax your two thousand and twelve two thousand  because you know the self employed individual got the ability to manipulate that but eventually you know you've got to take that and so if the income is projected and it turns out not to be that high you're saying the debtor can come in  because she's in the position of having to pay one hundred  and i represent dr woodward in this bankruptcy by just a couple points of clarification if i may dr wood one does not own a quote he she has an interest in  appropriate way unfortunately we have no legislative history to tell us what congress intended or did not intend to do and in mr hours briefly talked about it's clearly the intent or there's no intent there to to tell us what congress intended to do i think we set forth our position fairly clearly we would urge this chord to adopt  dino's opinion and believe that the broad view is the correct view you would agree that the three circuit courts of appeal that have decided have gone to the other to the banks point of view yes i recognize that objection to the claim they still appeal the treatment of that claim under the plan is impaired and i am i i don't following your argument correctly i just want to make sure yes ok that that's correct that's correct  o i believe that that issue in my opinion is is is moot in that there are objections not appeal to the claim because they said it wasn't a claim and i want to emphasize that that claim rooms between the time of the five titian during the chapter seven and the chapter eleven is when that claim actually rose you speaking of the elite claim it was the only way if the this aren't entitle to vote would you agree the case has to be sent back for another confirmation hearing yes i would say that you're in unfortunately that's the so if you have that issue with regard to the plan i guess i want to go back to something you said earlier that new your client disputes the basis of the loan then i understand that the conversion to eleven may have been based partly on her income which was above the means test level what would prevent you from converting back to a salmon and fighting about the issue about whether the debt is primarily business or personal at this  clamming what you said was we converted to eleven hoping to get a consentual planner to get a plan confirmed and that hasn't happened for a number of years so i guess i'm i'm wondering why we're continuing down that path if there are other alternatives that judge fetterman explained or as i think i do believe that that could be an option the matter the fact is i believe that u s trustees office quite honestly would fight the conversion to bit more room in these files will end and suggested to us that he he was going to rule from the b and she would be a forty five hundred dollars per month payment secure creditors and we had at that point in time they had an oral request from bad to from thirty five hundred to forty five hundred i believe just some of the you know in reviewing those clear error of any findings of those flaps  the issue that the big raises with regard to the self employment tax i would like to just address i just briefly in their us in their practice as in the law f cash item that the bank is winning this core leave it is because for income or gross income is reduced by not only the portion that cheat as an employee but also as as to the