regard the fact that this chapter thirteen bankruptcy filed by terri and monica seymour was filed on april twenty fourth two thousand and eight then headed continued to pen to the automobile that said that terri seymour stayed in june three two thousand and ten more than two years looking at the chronology of the bankruptcy  chapter thirteen the last that i see the thirteen was a nine twenty ten which was after the accident in june three two thousand and ten was a change of address and then also june of that year also there was another change of address that was the total the completion of the plan was done june twenty ninth two thousand twelve and seven seventeen twelve terry and monica seymour we're just charge other case i have read not only in the state of illinois but the entire united states was there ever an affidavit by the united states trustee in bankruptcy stating that catch as proof and evidence  case that he did not need to do anything more than when he did do in this case that's a distinction between all other cases chapter thirteen those who were never converted to a chip thirteen to a seven and those two just for me as a chapter thirteen is this case was a great distinction in addition to the affidavit of lydia meyer who was the trustee in bankruptcy for approximately twenty years when she signed th i don't think that that indicates in any way shape or form that he received some kind of a benefit of any kind in this case and this court has in other cases pronounced that  because those facts i think are the most important facts in this entire litigation and as we consider you used that story about the defendants labor argument waiver argument that judicial discretion not obtained we know that the court did hear the second district appellate court that found abuse of discretion but i think in doing over here i don't think there's been enough evidence here t really gave it much consideration to what i am urging this court to do and take into consideration that the united states trust me for the bankruptcy court of illinois can't you have a david that  this couple terri seymour and not seymour didn't have to do anything unless they got more than two thousand dollars in cash during this plant video then they would have reported to the trustee now these two people terr consideration i think is more to the noble standard than it does an abuse of discretion now we know that the cases talk about both stance both the abuse of discretion please and  instruction struck them that they do not have to turn any money or do anything more than the schools that they get two thousand dollars or more from any source their jimmy lee let the trustee you know their lawyer in their custody know about that and that's what they did here and i think it's very important whether really should have done or didn't do it they were indeed instructed by the trust aide to do that and that was confirmed bankruptcy code which requires reporting arizonan equitable argument you're making well i get you both i think that number one to answer your your first question i think sort that so it's just not the cash because other sources involved in what they might have to report which w unjust result this man is an innocent person he was a passenger an ambulance and two vehicles collided he is probably totally disabled will never work again he is not a bill is ensure that exceed over a million dollars he will be continue the rest of his life and to have this kind of result for what is contained in the record here i think is wrong and that's why i'm here urging this court to please reverse the of action rice not of the automobile accident of june two thousand and ten i don't know that they anybody ever told him that they stuck i don't think so was just charged and did everything he thought he should do and this actually happened you know more than two years after they filed this chapter thirteen two i think that's important to know too and that's why i gave you those dates because it was filed before twenty four  person is resold they can decide that there's no doubt no question about that although i say in this case as this is a very harsh and just result to be to have this case taken from these two people to receive is zero is a discharged in bankruptcy because the presumption is that it would have made a a change in the bankruptcy plan payment but we don't know that because the creditors and the bankruptcy trustee they're who have the burden to show that there was a benefit to the point with respect to that this turgeon bankruptcy that would made this first we know there's there's an equal presumption that it would have made no  about the benefit is they received a full discharge in bankruptcy without disclosing all assets appealable to the bankruptcy estate and you're saying in effect when we talk about whether it would or would not have made a difference to the outcome in the  has changed we no longer have that income level because i'm not working i've been hurt so the creditors were able to review that information they were able to determine whether the the income was as discussed and whether indeed the debtors were solely rely on the workers comp benefits and if those benefits were unavailable to the bankruptcy estate some time passes at the telly the plaintiffs who have sworn before the bankruptcy court that is not working has returned to work but he's never advised the bankruptcy court creditors you should know i'm back to work i'm getting a salary i'm now employed and maybe instead of using those plans payments downward like you did for me before maybe they should be adjusted upward and you should be getting more money than you were originally because i'm now working so that is the that's the wind well that's the advantage that's the benefit to the point it is not disclosure never resulted in a really just in the plan payment we have the plan or the discharge order in the record your honor i don't i believe that the discharge order is in the in the record that was submitted or at least the outline stating what the discharge order was we know that there was the bankruptcy court i think that the plaintiffs have to david's have described what was happening before the bankruptcy court the trustee and the bankruptcy attorney both stated there were some modifications to the plan the affidavit state directly that they applied for because the again the the way the bankruptcy court is able to function is by person allowing creditors to try to get some money back to telling predators you may not receive everything you may only get pennies on the dollar but the price that that person paid in order to get that this charge and not to pay everything that they owe is to lay bare their financial corpus and say this is what we have this is these are the assets we have you  through them and you get to make the determination ask for these things to be available to the bankruptcy estate so that we can get more of our debt returned to us so there are the elements are met here because the part stop has taken two different positions the plaintiff said i was where i was working not one not working never said oh i'm working again but still apply for workers comp benefits based on the second answer then and filed  but me because it's the bankruptcy it's the worker's comp forum and it's the state court action and they intended the trier of fact to believe everything that they said whether they were in or not working and they say they succeeded and i that the plaintiff received no benefit from the nom de plume because the because of the existence of this would have made no difference to the outcome in the back would you agree that there would not discharge so even raised i mean given what we know whether that would have happened with or without the the fact that the there was not a disclosure of the suit which which part we would you mean well my question remains who here let me put it this way did you have a bird with respect to your motion to show that there was a benefit that was confer we don't know and that's you know this is circular to us but we don't know right i mean we don't know and was there a benefit if we did know th turning over the information that he would have achieved a discharge would there have been any doubtful we probably would not be seeing this if you turned over the information then then we would have been able to say that he took and system positions and telling the trier of fact to believe that so he would have been stopped the first few element discretion but this was this came to the court on a motion for summary judgment which is there's no dispute as to the facts so why would we review the noble the better reason is the one that was raised by know review that's more administrative that the court has decided within its discretion we're not going to allow this case to move forward now what we do we do with this case we have we have to get rid of it and it quickly address the waiver we the change in the then you should report it to that he would either pay more or pay less but did that affect the balance what happened says with the chapter thirteen is you there still saying this values those elements it looks to the intent what the party is intending for the court to accept a stop in under oath requirement is not required for the application of just was doubtful in the context of cases involving a bankruptcy petition and an undisclosed claim for money damages in another proceeding upon firing for bankruptcy a debtor takes enough they take an oath to provide truthful honest and complete disclosures to the bankruptcy court in addition they take another oath in which they affirm that they will abide by the ongoing duty to disclose any change in their financial status throughout the life of their bankruptcy in this case the evidence was clear when the financials that circumstances changed to their detriment the plaintiffs went into the bankruptcy court sort of modification to reduce the amount that they were paid when their circumstances changed again they didn't bother to tell anybody they didn't tell their bankruptcy attorney they didn't tell the trustee they just let it drop the ongoing duty impose upon debtors is a very small price to pay when they seek protection under the bankruptcy for the duty is at the very core of the bankruptcy process if creditors no they are not where and i understand your argument and i don't disagree with the handle bankruptcy cases so you know how this works but at least at the time it was initially filed there was no non disclosure bridge folio and we believe that  but your argument is focused on down the road down the road and back to justice thomas and justice armors question i'm having trouble understanding how the non disclosure about the wages going up or down makes a hill of a difference in terms of any benefit that you look they would receive that causes harm to you well there it were the creditors and the trustee were not given an opportunity to go back and seek a modification after he returned to work and got off the t happens to increase the payments either back to where they were before or even more than what they were before based on what he was making at the time in addition the cause of action accrued two years before just charge it was never disclosed the creditors and the trustee could have sought a dismissal of his action to seek those those funds the chance was not given and when you file for bankruptcy you have to play by the rules in any court you have to play by the rules and in this particular case the plaintiffs chose to ignore the duty to disclose when it worked to their detriment when perhaps their bankruptcy could have been modified again to increase their payments or in terms of the relief that you or the defendants are seeking just to bar the personal injury action right unfortunately that is the end result judicial southall and that is something known to the bankruptcy trustee after the fact now that the bankruptcy trustee have the authority to reopen the the estate if it's based on fraud or because of non disclosure when the bankruptcy attorney and the  trustee found out about this cause of action the bankruptcy had already been just charged here and my understanding is after here they cannot now go back there is a potential for some criminal action but that's not disclose and discovery in the case that is presently pending still a certain order one of a will county that they did have this accident in iraq to treason depositions i think that's important to know that there