and is that is the standard of review abuse of discretion well i think it's really a matter of law here i don't know what the the  was there an issue of discretion there that's i mean is that what you know direct me to what would tell me that you were the prevailing party so how do we what's out there that tells me if you're the prevailing party you're entitled to your attorney's fees well it seems that the statute you know says that the creditor shall be a member reimbursed for their attorney fees and i think the question is not whether some might just perhaps how much it would be where there would well i mean is that something how should that can how it might have something to do with the amount of the fee but i think i recognize the problem but i think we have an unfortunate circumstance here where we had court got it wrong but they had to appeal to get it you know to get the face that they were entitled to when that's behind us when he said and what we won and we were entitled you know bet that the higher authority said that we deserved to win so why shouldn't we get those now the five hundred three b is very explicitly were written and it meets a small group not a small group but professionals where there is where they are not prior were not previously approved for employment by the court so it's different than three thirty which is where decided that their attorneys fees should be awarded but five o three b doesn't say anything about awarding fees for appeal or for other work done such as i know that there's  allow for that whereas three thirty eight six specifically says if you applications you can be compensated for and although the of helen's argue that if five o three b would allow that there's case law that says you can get compensated for preparing a fee application there's cases that say that you can't be compensated and maybe most telling is the fact that the themselves didn't seek compensation for their own feet application preparation despite their assertion now that they were entitled to it so i think that absent more specific and they've the cases where it has one party versus the united states or one party versus another party and the prevailing party wins the context especially in a chapter seven context where you're fighting over a limited fin no i'm not saying that the attorney should work for nothing but creditor that first of all that the creditor the attorneys working for the creditors here the appellants have the bloom firm has clients arguably that retained them to do this work and would be liable to the bloom firm to pay these fees and have the bloom for and argument is that or i should say that they pellant just argued it's not fair that we didn't get the that's the bankruptcy context you're fighting over limited resources and they knew that where they should have gone through that analysis is going forward that hate you know maybe it's not worth filing appeal over nine thousand dollars in fees especially in this situation the boom firms clients the creditors were going to receive eighty five percent of the money so by them prosecuting this appeal or so i think there's a cost benefit analysis and there's the risk of loss in deciding whether to file an appeal which is normal in a lot of context you have to decide whether it's worth it to appeal you can let me let me ask you this what is the bankruptcy that the baptist basically denied it right it was sort of that so do we have any how do we know what the exercise of their discretion was the exercise of the bankrupt the original bankruptcy if they thought that it was a reasonable less they would have went into detail why they thought certain fees were unreasonable i can assume by the fact that they just summarily deny them that they thought that there was no legal right to those fees that thinking all of us can only assume what they are thinking and it does the problem for an abuse of discretion standard as to how do you determine whether they abuse their discretion if they don't tell you fees for anything other than what is specifically allowed in five or three days but is it your position then that we really have to review this on a day local basis rather than the use of description considering that panel has nothing to go by but to review it on a dyno whole basis because it it has nothing in which from the pap to to go by yes i would agree with that that you're probably faced review the bad decision on the novo review but even under that standard a completely new review of this i think the american