you good morning your honor sorry i'll start on behalf of the bank of new york mellon and this case we have no dispute that the h away sale is void or violating the automatic stay however the district court denied the consequence of that violation by denying interfered with and secondly it noted that oftentimes in bankruptcy litigation there are rights of parties that are not technically parties to the litigation itself that are affected and so by giving protected predators that it prevents one predator from violating the law is a document of the other credited which is precisely what happened here here the homeowner association violated the stake and the consequence for the bank as the predator that actually that and so we would be left what we think would be a paradoxical situation where neither the trustee for whatever reasons motivated it nor the creditor who had invoked help from bankers in protecting the violation of the automatic stay and see it is interesting because it's not a federal court so it doesn't really bind us obviously but on the other hand it is from the nevada supreme court and in the backs the backdrop of all of this obviously as is  superpower the issue which is really about a lot of things so it's interesting to me that in the mastering court seems to clearly think that the bankruptcy stage does not allow happen what has happened here at least in  the state court it's nevertheless found as a matter of state will then it's a sale that's void under federal bankruptcy i think you're we're a step further where the state orders to terminate the matters of law but the bank should when and where they had about two minutes and forty five seconds left i'd like to reserve that for a bottle of that's ok that's out we are on the record is the chapter thirteen bankruptcy filings in the case the trustee abandon the property schedule also show party had a value of about ten million nine hundred thousand nine hundred dollars and had a secured debt of one hundred and eighty eight thousand five hundred and ninety five dollars that's all in the record on appeal before the court so this had zero value or the debtor and the case law is replete that the provisions of the bankruptcy court are there for the protection of the trustee and the state not for creditors  found that they didn't have standing to come in and set the sale aside because section three hundred and sixty two dollars the automatic stay is intended solely for the benefit of the debtors estate not for the credit them whatsoever does not affect and you the party let me ask you about the equitable it actually said i don't have but and if i recall correctly your argument an equitable was well since they don't have a founding of the bankruptcy say they don't they know they are open so the whole issue here becomes whether or not it was unfair to use the nevada supreme court you know because they private i don't think properly flies right unfair was seems to me like in theory even if you don't have standing to raise to present the bankruptcy argument why couldn't being as showing that the transaction was unfair and then make the commercial and then make the argument that it was in an equitable step the case law is very clear there has to be causation between the and the unreasonably low price now seven thousand dollars and here they have not shown any causation between the violation of the automatic stay and the a reasonably low price but the  even if that's not even if in the best records that it is best records then that's what the law is after the fact you still arguably sort of misled them right you basic told them something that they couldn't that they would be to to literally set aside the sale and the soci it would with once again a party because of its leniency is being reinstated that kind of remedy is also difficult in these cases where you oftentimes don't have the former home owner which would be put back in in possession of the property and so i guess i would say to the extent that the remedy can proceed or being evaluated by this court would be to make a finding that this court area should have issued a declaration that the banks do you trust survived the sale we could just the south go far but that they're lean still the basically hardy way that owns the property subject to their lien is one way this could go right well i that's what i understand it to be asking and if that tering the question directly our general position are regarding our general preference is that the banks interest be deemed to have survived the association sale but not at the association sale be set  right and i think everybody agrees that we are right that a violation of the automatic stay renders the sale void it becomes a question of what is the consequence of that or former homeowner the consequence maybe they don't really care one way or the other and it would be up to them stay argument even if we had other avenues the fact that this was avoid sale makes bad kind of a non issue for or the association of where the buyer is looking at it just within the perspective of fraud oppression and fairness that i'll add a little i've done them to that briefly which is that as we found in recent your students from there that spring board if we can show that such a tender would have been few tile based on prior conduct and it would have been excuse and that's not something that was developed in this record but