was bad faith for my clients to move out soon before filing the chapter eleven case to reduce the status of the property now has it been sold or what yes your honor has been sold to a i've read the transcript in the bankruptcy judge my words was not buying what your clients were cooking that day and you know sometimes as a lawyer that happens i appreciate that but there is a deferential standard of review i believe in light of what the the court should be reversed if it applied the wrong law or made the wrong findings here we have levet blenheim and other cases that set forth what the factors for finding by faith   was was moving out and then finding and eleven is a bad face and this was this was for debris which she found i thought was that you were moved out and branded the property  to reach it to reach a resolution and one of the results of such a chapter and find a regular solution is to give to the lender whoever that lender is the present value of  was basically subject to not being modified in the bankruptcy case for your my client's remained in the property for nine the made well over a million dollars in payments after paying almost a million dollars as a down payment he was only  for one of the things that occurred in bankruptcy which has misfortune that mr ralph did that you know lost his job temporarily that they found themselves trying to get a loan modification which they could not do either outside of the bankruptcy process process or in the initial chapter thirteen cases during which they applied and again were denied most people are so finding themselves in that situation they decided to pay the ultimate prize commentator that the bankruptcy court was concerned about the fact that there was conflicting uncorroborated testimony as to whether they had or had not moved out and that that was the issue it was not established that in fact they had moved out they were all over the place in other words in terms of what the testimony was the one thing that is important here is that under the local rules that there is no life testimony in the hearing like this unless notice as they go on ahead of time my clients court pointed out and the bankruptcy appellate panel and its decision categorized as well for example there are at least seven factors that the bankruptcy court as recognized by the bankruptcy a as as supporting or leading to a conclusion of a bad faith one was the move out and the timing of the move out expressly the court noted that the appellant's could not have done their liens trip if they had stayed in the property so the timing of the move out was critical and as your honor pointed out the timing it was unclear based on the testimony the appellant's cannot get their story straight on when they actually moved out so it gave pause clearly to the bankruptcy judge what their intent was in moving forward in fact as the bankruptcy judge pointed out it is noted in the opinion below the whole intent of our purpose of the filing was testified to by the appellant reale at the three forty one hearing and he said his intent was to strip confirm that as well so that those factors including the timing and not getting their story straight led to it the other factor as you're out of pointed out is whether there was conflicting testimony on what it there was a lease when they moved out they moved into their mother's property they moved into their mother and mother in law's house and it was unclear whether they signed a lease with the mother in law there was no actual written lease never produced i don't believe there was not an author with them but with the mother in law correct so that was another factor that went to the bankruptcy court finding and then with respect to other factors that the bankruptcy court touched on but also this court can look at was is the feasibility of any potential plan and as the evidence shows in the record chase pointed out in their motion to dismiss and supporting papers even assuming that the loan could be modified as the appellant's asked it's still one of cashflow they're still did not make enough pre partition that we got that were not addressed and that could be a factor as well with respect to the timing and their whole intent of collecting rent from the rental property and not taking care of the arrearages and the third factor are sorry the seven factor that they pointed out and this court can can look at as well is the pain of property taxes or the lack thereof the pellets have been in default for approximately twenty two months by the time they filed this petition obviously during that time period the accrued has had the arrearages had accrued and in addition to chase had been responsible for property taxes as well so all those factors could have been considered and in fact were considered by the bankruptcy judge below so exactly how did the lien stripping work well they didn't get that far you're out of date the appellants had filed a motion to value the collateral at one at the lien at one point eight million thereby reducing the amount on the lean but the case was dismissed before that monday was less how did they intend for the intended to work to strip it down to one point and then offer a plan of how much they would pay on terms and i think their proposed plan was approximately to pay approximately seventy three thousand and seventy three hundred dollars a month toward satisfying that secured debt to to chase at the new one point ten as the record shows and the bankruptcy court pointed out in both the hearing and the transcript hearing as well as chase offered in evidence below in arguments in their in their motion moving papers that's still one pencil out at even at that amount and again that's a factor of what were they doing what was the purpose here if they really couldn't confirm a plan other than to reduce the amount and and frankly to delay the foreclosure see one of the issues i wanted proceeded to be foreclosed by chase chase was the benefit was the made a credit bid and was the beneficiary that got the property back at the sale subsequent to that your honour's cases then sold the property to a third party so it thurso there's been a third party now involved as well i want to point out a couple things with respect to move this not only is the property gone so it's no longer an acid the estate the appellants had an opportunity and they did to try to stay this stay the sale pending the appeal that was denied they also filed two actions at the same time as well they filed a federal court action and a state court action they were identical actions in fact the state court action is still pending in those actions they could have asked for injunctive relief from either the federal court other state court they did not there's a state law provisions that that they could follow to ask for an injunction of the sale if they have and i believe the read and they did not do that they haven't done they didn't do that before they haven't done it they didn't do it once before the merge the stay was denied after that stay was denied didn't go back to and try to get an injunction and i believe the reason they didn't do that as we point out in our papers is there was no prejudicial defect in this foreclosure process they wouldn't have been able to meet the standard under state law to either undo the foreclosure are prevent the foreclosure and as we point out that is is the barrier here why it's moot we the property is gone they haven't identified a procedural defect in the foreclosure sale  chase was the proper or did i think their argument was that whoever purchased it and notice that they had an interest in the property so what is your response to that sure your honor and with respect to that argument though the party that purchased it from chase after the foreclosure sale that did not contain prejudicial defect they purchased that property in r r b f p's their bona fide purchasers for value they had no knowledge they they had with respect to the property is that it was foreclosed upon trustees did upon sale was properly issued showing that chase was the winning bidder at the  foreclosure sale and they relied on that trust to get upon sale and without any prejudicial the facts indicated or on the face of that trustee deed upon sale the bona fide purchaser of this third party that later purchased the property from chase had no knowledge or are either actual or constructive of the fact that there was a dispute on this property again they were the only issues going alleged effect they point to is the  you can't do that in a chapter eleven bankruptcy if you are residing in the principal residence correct you can't strip under those circumstances as correct right that's why my  what the bankruptcy judge really i mean we can talk about these other bases for bad faith but that's one of the really destroy the bad faith was found by the bankruptcy court as reformed by the bapi the panel no your honor beside the point when you when you have the ability to to modify the loan with that after they moved out your other so the cash that we're generating from rent was sitting in a segregated account it would've been turned over to them upon approval of a plan or even you both for your argument this case this matter submitted