importantly is the fact that both the stipulation and people who are on the stipulation were drafted by the attorney for the county and the order itself states in relevant part at appellate excerpts of record page thirty nine the court's order again drafted by the attorney for the county that the stipulation is a hereby approved and and i quote shall be binding upon the parties for the purposes of these proceedings and i have to the county as a matter of fact we don't know because as we stand here today the gentleman has passed away before this case went to trial unless you know so i don't know why such a is so difficult but you know every year your tax bill comes due right if you don't pay your tax bill on time certain amount of interest kicks in and then penalties kick in correct and then if you still don't pay it they have their tax lien and they can foreclose on your property her that's a very elaborate process it's not an easy process under california law but i don't know why that can't be calculated why not you know why that was an easily ascertainable at the time it probably put have been and it is my understanding and i'm only making a representation of the court as mr joyce was not passed away was a informal associate of mine we work together on many cases and it is my understanding he did contact the county to ascertain amounts and that is why he put the amount of ninety three fifty into the plan that was not a dispute at the time there what happens if and the county was just wrong had they told him that was the amount he put in every everything was fine except some clerk at the county made a mistake and they keep their weenie and what happens then if the court is asking the question if i see a question that if the play and the amount is what the plan says but there is a lien for taxes as they grew correct is that right that that is true but i understand it and i'm getting ahead of myself based upon the question but to me sophisticated as many of my colleagues here in the room today to me that is pretty crystal clear that what we're looking here is what we believe to be true and if you don't take action the court's going to accept it now moving on from that going to  in this case there's no doubt and nor has it has anybody ever disputed that the county was secure however the issue is not if they are secured it's how much they're secured for and i would point analysis about the difference between consensual mortgages and statutory taxes i don't think it matters for purposes of notice to satisfy the due process requirements of the paragraph deals with claims secured by real property that's the first thing that is the debtors principal residence that identifies the property the value as of the effective date of the plan of the series of payments to be distributed under the plan on property is concerned that the lien still present is look but the lien was always present here i argue is you cannot have a situation when you're talking about secure claims this isn't saying how much i owe as a debtor this is saying this is the amount statute as those taxes do and passed through the grace period and therefore now in these files clearly sets that's not there were clearly theoretically or in actuality other taxes due at the time of the plans thought when you got a notice from the bankruptcy court saying here's the debt that's it either you send in something saying no the bankrupt those mean more money than that or that's the debt whether it's right or wrong and so you better check your own records and it looks to me is so if now i there are a lot of cases and a lot of cases today i may have my facts all wrong but it looks to me is that what happened is the debtor stepped out something saying here's what we owe on taxes to the county the county acquiesced let it go forward let a plan b ack confirmed with based on that amount the debtor paid on that amount and then subsequently the county comes back later and says oh no you noticed a lot more taxes than i don't see how that can happen actually i think that that can happen very easily busiest district and all that cuts no ice with me at all because my experience as a district judge was that the smallest district had judges busier than when our paper hanger's because of that all  very quickly filed documents there's a very rapid response thirty days so actually from the standpoint of a secured lienholder such as a county venture and it's taxes that's really insufficient you get a complete as an example apart from a simple plan of reorganization our simple notice of the filing of a bankruptcy that is in fact a red flag that the county have some special ticket that lets them ignore deadlines or are  creditors entitle to more time than the law says i think the law as far as the case law here simply indicates that it's not a question of the time as far as response it's a question of the notice and it's a question of the adequacy of the plan of reorganization we have two issues that i didn't see any problem with the notice i mean to marry that paper it says here's how much we owe you and you look in your records and that's either right or wrong actually you're out of this great deal wrong with the notice the notice itself doesn't provide required to acknowledge that the underlying debt was just charges that underlie debt and this part in this case far as the date of the filing of the bankruptcy was not nine thousand three hundred fifty dollars it was over twenty at the time that the plan was submitted the claim was not in firearm remember that public enemies are entitled to one hundred eighty days to file a claim in a situation like this this was a quick turnaround on the plan and so it was  our claim was not in the file at the time the bankruptcy plan was either filed or proved i think and there was no effort again from the state then you got a copy of this proposed plan we did get a copy of the post plan and you knew that it was somebody in your office computer they would know that the a mouth didn't match up i would i mean i don't know that i'd look like lighting on that but i'd leave you to crack  now there were there were three thousand two hundred fifty four dollars and forty cents in post petition taxes that were included later on and frankly the whole reason for the county that was submitted was to clarify for the court and also for the debtors as far as what the actual tax liability was as of the date of the filing of the petition this whole bankruptcy proceeding seems like a total waste of time if you can come back and say oh they owe us more money well you honor why wrap the whole thing up and have the court supervising it i don't get it it's all seems like a waste of time if you can say later well we had noticed the number was wrong and but we noticed it now so we want more money than the ninety three fifty that was the whole basis for the plan it's over you know your honor the reason that the public debt is different in this case is it's a tax the public and these are required to provide services to the property owners they can't twenty seven thousand at that ship that on a plane that's right around twenty thousand doesn't mean that in twenty seven thousand nine dollars ninety two cents i believe all of that was put into the calculation of the amount and the stipulation on it and that was that was one of the problems that we had if you look back in this case was as soon as our office became involved we did in fact provide an accounting to the debtors in this case which it went through and analyzed exactly how much the debt it was working from we never got a response back other than we don't think the amount is correct that left us in the position when trial was coming out of having to try the issue of the amount of the debt in the accounting in addition to the damages it seemed to be a needless and almost impossible but why is it needless i mean you're fifteen thousand dollars apart if they think they owe nine thousand and you think they owe twenty seven thousand or whatever it was that well the amount it seems like that's worth having a trial for a couple hours to find out how much they want to work at all your honor the amount of these to feel a suit was almost identical with the first statement that we provided to the know many months before all of this occurred so as far as having a trial on the issue of accounting it seemed to be a waste i'm having trouble following that's all i'm getting is cut some slack for our mistakes because the times are short the district is busy the county is busy you want to we're simply stopped saying that we haven't secured a lien on the property the law recognizes that lien as being secured in california also public entity i don't understand how it makes a difference but you're arguing that it does what would happen with a bank if the debtor said the bank is threatening to foreclose iow fifteen thousand dollars that i have not paid  home mortgage and the bank at thanks that was actually it actually is so they really thousand dollars but it doesn't say so to the court it doesn't make a claim it doesn't  obligation the answer be correct as far as the foreclosure after the bankruptcy they could have in fact wasn't paid on the county debt unfortunately given notice of intent to sell on this which was the violation of the state but the county also in this case wound up reducing the amount of the obligation for the brothers to separate ways we expected a forgiveness of interest  penalties down to a certain amount which is required under the bankruptcy code of over four thousand dollars in addition that's was four thousand five hundred eighty four dollars and forty four cents in addition we had knowledge that we needed we and you could have filed some objection if wrong and you didn't do that we didn't do that ok now let's just say six months down the line passed and you decided that you recognize they were in the stake had been made could you have filed a motion to go in and correct the county object to the plan after the plan is implemented under the federal rules they can file their own adversary proceeding they can make a motion for excusable neglect to set aside any default that has entered against them and  lastly they are entitled to file explain up to one hundred eighty days after the plan is approved and in this case they blew that time also and filed an incorrect plan for incorrect amount as a priority not secured debt and that's why it was withdrawn but then never refiled and as a consequence this debtor in good things made payments for five years not for six months to get for five years longer than cases and you can't quote of course triple lien i can't make it clear enough that five or six which is the claim splitting process where you claim that the value has now been reduced by the market and so part of it isn't secured is what was happening here had to do with back payments which are part principal and interest but did not affect the ongoing debt as it accrued and my answer to this court i think it was the justice of the said what would happen or perhaps that was