claim the question the threshold question is under five a two j was the requisite cause under five a to j stablished and the answer is no under the circumstances of this case causes a determined under federal rule of civil procedure sixty b the court examined and rejected a finding of cause under sixty be wined be excusable neglect stander that is because the claim objection was deemed received by counsel at the address in the group of claim that is the bottom rule and it was actually sent twice the claim objection was sent to there and then also a notice of a rather because there was a page mission missing from an exhibit it was also served on the claimant himself at the home address that was also listed in the proof of claim again twice there's been no evidence whatsoever as to the claimant himself not receiving the objection the failure to respond was the neglect and the bankruptcy court actually found there was no cogent excuse for the failure to refund or to respond so the excusable neglect under sixty one was expressly not found by the bankruptcy court court and the panel doesn't have to nd guess that finding because the bankruptcy court found it where the court entered here your honour's is by moving to the catch all provision under sixty six dollars to supreme court says you can't do that when one of the other provisions of sixty b apply that's the good solace versus cross because yes the th circuit also says you can't do that under delay versus gordon and even the case cited by the bankruptcy court to unity dental services versus turning says that the bankruptcy court noted a federal policy to hear matters on the merits but that requires an opportunity to be heard and the claimant hear how that opportunity to be heard on the merits honors if for if we don't deal with the standard where you have to show excusable neglect for not responding it really it would render the excusable neglect standard meaning it's so the council let me let me just address that for a nd though relieve you of your obligation your honors the cases are very clear if the situation fits under one of the sixty be standards other them a catchall provision and those standards are not  june th order which would effectively reinstate the order disallowing the calling the wyly case also says that you don't even get to the merits unless you can get over the sixty b b hurdle and it says you can't look at the merits in order to try and find cause under sixty be moving to the nd prong your honour's is even if there were cause the merits of the claim objection mandate let me get you back for a nd go to sixty six and that is also under the ten if this isn't another decision of the th circuit and the supreme court requires extraordinary circumstance and that can be based on  the mailbox rule and there was no proof that you didn't properly serve the original objection and the original route to the objection that's absolutely right your honor there was absolutely no other reason i offered for not responding to the claim objection other than i didn't see it again and certainly nothing that would meet extraordinary circumstances and there was nothing on that client that was that point at which might lead you to infer something but there was nothing from the client we're talking about only be attorneys quote testimony or argument in the pleadings that's correct i'm i'm i'm a math issues your honour's you know the issue here was whether this lease was a fam arkan value commercial lease under new jersey law on the basis for the claim was the new jersey consumer fraud act and the consumer protection leasing act neither of those statutes apply to a fair market value commercial lease and it here the claimant acknowledges that in its briefs down below that if this lease is a fair market value commercial lease the statutes upon which the claim is based do not apply and the bankruptcy court erred in that regard because this is a fair market value commercial east it is a far right commercial purpose that is undisputed and it had a fair market value buyout according to the express terms of the lease the lessee had the option but not the obligation to purchase the lease at the purchase of the vehicle at the lease and the purchase price at the least and was to be that then fair market value so the parties expressly agreed and intended that the lisi had the option but not the requirement to purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease at that then fair market value it's hard to imagine any other terms in a lease that could be used to meet a fair market value commercially and then the that we talk about in the papers shows this conclusively and apparently in his brief opening brief that page seven concedes that nebraska land disposes of the case on the merits which is whether the new jersey statutes apply nebraska land says that if the billies contains a formulistic approach to the option buyout price that ignores the value factors like age mileage and condition when it would not be a fair market value if it lacks any evidence of the party's intent to use fair market value has the bio price again here the expressed terms of the lease show that it's the fair market value at the end of the lease that would be the like maybe the lease could be re characterized maybe there some other new jersey law that the claimant hadn't put forth before the court but none of that was before the court the claimant has the burden to show the basis for its claim and how the court just looked at the the lease terms of south and the two definitions and in the statute the claimant admits controlled the issue and that rascal and case it could have determined this was a fair market value commercial lease exempt consideration motion is denied the claim disallowance order is reinstated and the claim is disallowed but the bankruptcy but the panel could because everything's in the record and it's looking at the law make  that i'm all ears i don't know where that leaves us i don't know where that leaves any concept of due process when somebody didn't receive something they say it's ok because my point got it we don't hear it but their routine practice w preserve the rights that someone who admittedly got it and that has to explain why they didn't act timely you're going to jail out of you know get out of jail free card essentially all you have to do is deny that it was received and then all bets are wasn't time to prepare a formal motion the matter was coming on for hearing about the closing of the case and we had to get up a session before the judge and we succeeded not regard and i think that says something for us hearing on closing the gates and raised an argument for the st time that you had received proper notice of the objection and at that point they they were prepared to address anything because you haven't formally done anything other than object to the closing of the case you raise for the st time at that hearing that you had a right to further matters and have the court address further matters with respect to the of jetsam and that's why the court directed a further hearing on the th and then a further hearing on in june where the merits were actually addressed by both parties i mean it's your lack of diligence or lack of buildings attributable to your side that we find ourselves in this situation let me ask you something you've claimed yet the original objection you claim you go to iraq then you got the notice of the closing of the case which had within it the notice that your claim had been disallow receive even though they were sent to four twice to two different address right i don't know how anybody could respond to that argument but they but they do on several occasions and now it's a it's a presumption we have to deal with it unless you've got something to add and i the presumption shouldn't be followed we can walk you can make whatever other arguments  the why should be extraordinary circumstances well i guess anything that would that would be so tried golden that would that would allow a case to proceed when in this case there's just overwhelming evidence of fraudulent activity if you were promoting arguments that at every turn the the yes the debtor tried to take advantage of our client if i could involves the definition of fair the words fair market value commercial lease appear in two places one of the mission a definition of lease and that's the one that are important of interest to him and it says that the he said on the basis of that that a fair market value lease is exempt from the coverage of the statue well that's true if it is in fact a fair market value lease but that turns you to the other definition that appears as one of the same definitions it actually could find such term fair market value least immediate agreement between a lesser unless you can have that here in which the vehicle is used for commercial purposes we have it here and here is the critical part and which so the the thing is the conditions that make it a fair market beggarly have to appear in the document and and if they don't appear it's not a fair market value least so the definition of the lease doesn't apply to it at all it's not  least and but it it if the agreement provides for the purchase of the vehicle at the end of the lease and of course of course the payment occurs at the end of least but the the option price has to be they can charge whatever they want it doesn't matter what the agreement says and and that's supposed to satisfy the conditions of fairness by no stretch going to be said that would be what they and deciding the matter under new jersey law this is mr crowley here about thirty seconds over right now so if you want to make a last brief your honour's thank you i think we've gone over the sixty one argument pretty well the presumption of receipt there's nothing to rebut that there's been no excusable neglect shown sixty six is not the place to go the catch all provision if sixty one applies and it clearly does here just in terms of the last statements he was making about the found market value commercial lease issues you know he read counsel read the definition look at the lease here it says fair market value he gets confused when he starts applying the statutes that are at that are excluded from applying to fair market value commercial leases start saying there needs to be a