enforce that that against ms washington had no state remedy as had no ability to go after her personally for that that it had one option and that was to execute on its lien which it did not feel there are many compelling such a divergence of opinion about this one i think there's some confusion about what it means to still have a lean even though somebody has been through seven and i think that confusion is fostered a there's something more than a one billion here there's that leans on obligate is the ability to enforce a debt if it isn't paid right but the debt has technically gone away because there's no personal obligation to pay it and yet if you don't something bad's going to happen so there's sort of you know the lean mean something more than i can just enforce this practically and i think that's where some of the cases are struggling with well how can the claim truly be either gone or truly enforceable and i think  are looking whether or not they have a claim we are looking in the bankruptcy as to whether or not there is something to pay so they gather claim for their and right in the bankruptcy that does not mean that and so if there had been no chapter seven discharge just simply that the debt was a debt for which there was only liability against the property but not personal liability under five hundred and six would not be under doctor from filing an objection to that claim if we prohibit the debtor from file an injunction to claim and the determination of that claim under five o two then any claim could could be submitted to the bankruptcy court and we would be permitted prohibiting the debtor from saying hey this claim is time barred from this creditor doesn't have any rights under this under just that there was an improper assignment of the debt there could be many many reasons that that claim would be disallowed court i don't think it's an end run around johnson and johnson the supreme court ruled only that the discharge of personal liability did not mean that the link creditor did not have a claim at all you know thirteen the  creditor had a secured claim then it had a claim under the definition of one on fifteen dollars the creditor creditor continued to maintain its in ram rights those rights were not affected johnson was not dispositive on the issue  whether the creditors and secured claim could be allowed after the discharge the bankruptcy court here misread johnson it isn't it isn't the case that under your point of view johnson precludes the powerful principle that the discharge operates to impose a permanent injunction and i think if we ignore that or turning the discharged principles on their head three there is simply no remedy authority under state law for the lienholder other then and in action even if the lien holder executes on its lien under state law after the bankruptcy any deficiency balance could not exist as a personal liability against the gutter w that chapter seven discharge has already been afforded to the debtor and i think those three points are extremely important with regard to free we know that this court had stated it makes no sense to  include the unsecured debt in the debt limit on a plane that had been primarily prior had been discharged in the prior chapter seven bankruptcy now that the code in our case law compels inclusion of the discharge and person in liability in such a calculation and i think that carries directly over into this situation why would we be counting discharge that against the debt limits in a chapter thirteen case if those debts have been discharged and that same principle carries over into this case and we have to also look at one of the cases that an re free relied on and that was the rose the case although it was a lower court ruling it strictly on point with this case where the daughter's primary residence which does have different ramifications under lien strip law the rd and probably the most vital fact today is that the lien would only be avoided at the time and this was the debtors choosing not the court's choosing at the time that the debtor received a discharge of the debt as we know the bankruptcy case is dismissed the deserts made no outward attempt to try to reopen it and in fact used a motion and in order that both said to avoid the lien that the lien would be paid as a general unsecured creditor these were not mandatory court forms the central district will allow an attorney to alter a non mandatory form where debtors counsel could have simply stricken the page as an unsecured credit or are you suggesting that she's a stopped because of that or just because they're just that and the case before us the record before stunt reflect one way or the other that if real time resolutions relied on the fact that they would be paid as a general and secured creditor to some extent if this was a one hundred percent plan that was confirmed and it that the quote says that the courts hear that they consider the debt limit and to extend consideration of a debt limit without consideration of all of the other aspects in play in this particular case that it should mean that real time resolutions would receive no payment at all in re free is limited to a one hundred and nine eligibility determination in fact the central district in two thousand and fifteen recognized this and even said in a ruling that the free case is limited it's the cases in review hyphen rose in two thousand and fifteen well it may be limited but it's limited at the outset i mean if you if you went under one  right but if you went under one hundred and nine either the possibility that you were not able to avoid the lien once the bankruptcy is allowed to proceed in another chapter in that chapter correct in another chapter it could proceed in a chapter s right now ok but it's kind of you know it's kind of getting is that but i mean it's pretty fundamental business to say that it's yeah it's different but it's somehow less fundamental than the question of whether you'd avoid only i believe what is happening when we go to analysis of five or six a one going past the fact that the bankruptcy is dismissed and going past the judicial stoppel issue here that the statute itself clearly says either you're  secured or you're paid as a general and secure creditor congress is not amended the statute to say unless you have an in persona discharge congress has the ability to do that and when  for a general inspector claim the allowed claim is the allowance later of a debtor to then move to object to a claim and real time resolutions is not object are raising an issue with the fact that there is a claim objection or the one it's not the position that one could be filed or one could never be filed once we have a lien avoidance what the issue is is it does tie back to the judicial  had a realistic expectation that they would be paid as in general and secured creditor and that the act to then disallow their claim on that same basis or on the chapter seven discharge basis would be then raised does that answer your question quite i'm not sure how to formulate it more differently since i get to what i'm at but i mean suppose dollars i want something else not quite well i mean is it is it true that five or six begins on the premise that there are there are claims and sometimes they're secure and sometimes they're unsecured and something the fact that sometimes they're objected to is kind of a next step the five or six a's in different two right that's correct so there's nothing in five or six a that says you are a stopped from and i'm i'm formulating when you have an in rem claim it is property of the estate and it is property of the state that the trustee is then required to write a under in recorder right it's not an principal residence on the basis that there's no value attached to that portion of the lane and so the motion says that the lane is going to be allowed as an unsecured is going to be an unsecured claim and then the debtor subsequently files an objection to that claim on the basis that that is if they previously been granted a chapter seven discharge and it's not an allowable crime what's what's wrong with that person procedurally speaking how does that implicate i'm sorry can you repeat your saying that because they filed this form motion that said that you were going to be permitted to have an unsecured claim in the bankruptcy you relied on that is their right and therefore their it stopped from from  erting differently when they filed an objection to the calling i think that this was better addressed by this very court in in or eaten in a situation exactly like this they adopted the holding of in re akron which was the central district case as a general and secured creditor despite the fact that there had been a prior discharge of the in persona liability only know which the no and the deed of trust together create security interest where you're arguing that the use of the form that's used by the central district precludes the debtor from objecting to the claim later is that correct i'm not saying that the the form itself precludes this claim objection what i am saying is that the debtors the debtor and the debtors attorney did nothing to alter the form when the form could have been altered to say otherwise to say subject to a claim objection or we have no intent to pay anything on this in real time resolutions would have had the right to rely on the fact that they would be paid as a general and secure claim what's let me get to the reliance question was there any question but that the motion claim as an unsecured general and what did the plan say was going to happen to the and secure its payment in full one hundred percent ok but that in your mind that that as stops a later objection or something else i believe that it is stops the reason why the stops because now the doctor is taking a position that is wholly inconsistent with statements state said on the court record meaning we will pay you as a general once again let's let's get our law full stop it does not require reliance it just requires that it be adopted by the court and that the court proceed on that procedure other kinds of a stop would be based on reliance so your argument here really is that this is a position that they they presented to the court that this was going to be an allowed claim in the bankruptcy and the court adopted that when they signed the waterboarding lien is that your position that is our position from science becomes irrelevant ok want to make sure that that might end in your mind that basically precludes them from later objecting to the climb i believe it does preclude them from objecting on the basis is ok now that this is a general and secure claim you know have to pay it a not the fact there was a claim they could have the judge did this there was something very particular this non secure claim and it was basically a prior bankruptcy case had had an effect right and the effect was to discharge personal case i think that the issue with getting around the prior case is that we are now retroactively applying a completely new void it's to a chapter seven discharge when it would have been available it does so the cases that disagree seem to say want to do things a quote that just ain't right close quote or b there's something else in the johnson analysis that suggests that there's something else in the surviving secure claim that didn't go away somehow brother destruction when that was even reiterated in the bank of america versus versus koch it case where they address the fact that we're not going to take do snip we're not going to extend in general retroactively and make it a lean avoidance from a chuppah stemming from a chapter seven case and that's effectively what's happening here because the debtor says i got a chapter seven discharge you know i don't have to pay you at all anything it didn't show work and oppose the motion to avoid the mean it didn't show up and oppose the claim objection and i think any arguments that has here today have been waived but obviously you know the court will well determine that this is she was still important for issue preclusion purposes in a and i future case if the court had left its ruling that this claim was an allowed claim that would bar the daughter and in the future from objecting to that claim so our motion the motion to dismiss was denied and we were able to proceed on on that respect another another issue i had wanted to bring to the hundred and eighty one pages of local bankruptcy rules and a significant significant number of forms and that can create some confusion they don't always fit every round hole you know it's a square peg trying to be put in around home but if you agree with counsel this is a form you could modify and the court wouldn't necessarily reject it i'm not sure that i agree with that just i filed thousands of cases in the court orders often tend to differ when you get them back you know even though they've been submitted you know again i'm not sure that we care as much about reliance as maybe you know we would did the motion in fact say that when this lien is to track five o two with the language of five o two which would mean you should still have the ability to after this motion gollum's out to a claim that you think is inappropriate i mean you could object for many reasons maybe the creditors accounting  off ok and you needed to object something but like the order of the the motion was a form yes and you could you could modify it but you wouldn't be sure of the judge would have a problem come out occasionally ok right and i think the last point that i have is that congress has not limited the ability to object to a claim it has prescribe the ability to object to a claim and i think that's that's important here because and the appellee is arguing that we have an interim claim no matter what and if congress wanted to change that it could change that that it already gave us a mechanism in five o two to address the issues that we do have with claims and here like we said we believe the debtors personal liability was discharged in the chapter seven the creditor had an interim claim that lien was avoided in the chapter thirteen properly and then the claim was objected to properly it had no value