village of world before the court reached the merits of the case the court dismissed the action holding that the plaintiff was barred from taking the action because he did not properly list the cause of action on his petition in bankruptcy just to bring the court up to date appellant has moved in bankruptcy court to reopen his case the case is claim was not listed in writing on the pending on the assets of mr is not is that right that's correct but i just wanted to point out one thing to the court at the time the form that was  the way it was structured at that time when the form was done based upon april two thousand and thirteen it asked for all suits initiated proceedings which today is a was a part of it within one year immediately preceding the filing of the bankruptcy case directly but under under the principle of chapter one the chapter thirteen has standing to bring actions on them outside of the state he should be able to to pursue his cause of action and nineteen and presumably they were raised well before that when the motion to dismiss was filed to the extent there was a misunderstanding but there was cause to read salmon this again probably a year ago and yet when are you saying that the motion to reopen the bankruptcy proceedings was filed a motion to reopen was was not filed and i believe law from a ferric nugent macartney and represent a village defendant thank you your honor is st and foremost for accommodating all the parties in these challenging times and hearing our arguments we were back at least the mid to judge remonstrances in dismissing the complaint was correct in all respects and well within his discretion and the as plaintiff notes in their breach the standard of review was abused in here the court had not just plaintiff's self serving uncorroborated affidavit that you know he didn't do anything wrong here but it had a timeline a timeline of public records which amply showed that the debtor had full knowledge of absolutely do and the reason we do your honor is because as minister habermann invited this court to go beyond the record and go into the banks the court proceedings we invite the court to do that as well because in opposition to the debtor's motion to reopen the trustees attorney filed an active file to affirmation opposition in january stating it was never disclosed and then following that in march of two extent that it seeks to it's only because he's doing it to come after the village in the form of that and this form and the village was also a creditor you know so the village was a creditor and you know in this case unlike the case of ashmore or the case of clark which clinton does cite in their briefs you know there's no support here from the trustee there's no indication that disclosure of what he calls assets these claims against the village would have had any would not have impacted the three hundred and forty one hearing or the creditors condition you know here we believe that would have and not only that he's assuming these cases are asked that we had a nd question to our motion to there's a twelve b six motion that requires dismissal as well and renders this case not an asset it's unfortunate that the village had to defend itself in a state court action and this action and now in bankruptcy court simply because this gentleman could not disclose these claims in the bankruptcy court it would have all been resolved in the bankruptcy court and either dismissed in the bankruptcy court had he done so at the time it's marceau look it's just carney again could i ask if the bankruptcy proceedings were to be reopened do you know how the attorney's fees related to pursuing such a claim would be paid to become out of the state's already been distributed  to the extent this is an asset that the claim is an asset of state and whose whose value you know would only be realized after some subsequent litigation either by settlement or b a judgement there were attorneys would be to be paid to pursue the claim correct that that's correct i believe that would be an arrangement between mr habermann and his client there were for example no recovery ultimately if there was no recovery you said before that any recovery would go to the state right and but if the claim if the claim at that would be  to arrange somehow that the wearer is representing him and if it was myself representing him in litigation i have to make an application for bankruptcy court to retain pursuant to representation agreement and property under under ash for which this court decided list several factors that relate to this case vestment of inconsistent factual position adoption unfair advantage detriment an representation i'm not one hundred percent certain on that was the actual representation that he made i do i am aware that there's been some inconsistency in the affidavits i am aware that it's been alleged by the trustee th they're not necessarily sure that was discussed at the three hundred and forty one hearing i am aware from many conversations that i've had with my client that many proceedings that he's been involved with with this case it's if there's limited impact on our judicial integrity he felt that the point that he believed was correct and he's been trying to pursue this case against the village d for a while as well aware when the village answer the case