was institute and when the bankruptcy court of be it in excess of what had the most finance or wiped out incumbrances on the land or it was taken why isn't that the end of three it's not that kind of claim but creditors who have property interests that are not in the nature of claims also proceed in bankruptcy court for example i have a right to own furniture company will try land it's not a claim in the context and so it sits there much like a lien would otherwise sit in the bankruptcy and right through if not otherwise addressed in the bankruptcy but once you have a order from the bankruptcy be free and clear of interest then it would have given snavely some reason to object because she had an interest that would be subject to that motion namely her claims for an easement that's not the relief that the i mean she was using these rules and have it was something about water too with no dispute from the owner of the serbian ok so she's not lamb tell me tell me let's suppose that you're right on that that the crusty was just plain wrong and without power under eleven u s c three sixty three f to direct the sale of the ranch free and clear of her prescriptive easements let's go with you that far hypothetically i still what you told me there i was thinking about it he said what in converts this man was liens but what the order said with green clear means and it comforts us so that means either it's redundant either and income wipes out the power line so what you're saying is she had a driveway to her house she'd it's a five year prescriptive easement period month and if you've been using the driveway more than five years it's adverse because it's crossed somebody else's land that's what it takes for prescri without the driveway so the driveway goes if i got that's right here not the property where these roadies i'm what the property where the water well was and where the irrigation water and i would concede that her claim for the easement were water well and for the irrigation water should have been brought in the like to reserve the remainder of my time for a three sixty three order our memorandum disposition says that she appealed to orders the first declared a state judge took no one or you get awarded sanctions versus a police violation of the automatic see that you're doing it and i'm doing it and everyone in the neighborhood is doing it it's a case of neighborly accommodation in this particular instance of the effect of the order as her excuse for not feeling that issue and asking for the judge to reconsider and incumbrance language and not asking for the appellate court you have some authority to show your adversary or the use of the property and it talks about an easement being your honor i can't think of the name of it off the top of my head it isn't my brief and we have a lot quoted from and i apologize for that oversight the partition action it wasn't and she wasn't allowed to go back to the state court and ask for the same relief that you now think the she should have requested in the partition action and furthermore with respect to the  the three sixty three f order that was appealed and i believe that i'm correct in saying that it was zero three three five seven eight eight that was dismissed as in any of it if i'm saying i was looking at the wrong place then i read that number again yester case number zero three three five seven eight eight that was the appeal of the three sixty three  the bankruptcy court is reversed in this matter and the pope cade's doesn't say that the pope cases of malicious prosecution and the issue for us in that particular instance was whether there had been a dismissal in favor of the defendant