an adversary was filed by rushmore which sought to strike the motion for contempt it was it stated it in the complaint it was stated or oral argument was stated in the pleadings the motion for summary judgment motions to dismiss and even the court acknowledged that it was filed if not directly at least indirectly in response stay and the court had no jurisdiction those were the only position it is not that the adversary violated the stay is what the adversary tried to do that violated the stay if the court does not see this as a matter that falls under three hundred and sixty today i can see creditors in the future when there's a motion for contempt to respond by filing adversary proceedings and indirectly on your st contempt motion which is what you discussed and then the other component was their effort to say you know should be reversed basically because they had no you would like it parsed down but i think or i would argue that the motion to avoid leave that they were attacking is indirectly still an attack because it goes beyond that though it's not because it would not only defeat the motion for contempt it also mean they still got all right correct correct and in there creates all kinds of problems any other questions on this appeal know thank you i'll just briefly address the ninety five the supplemental see those were the moons of the i believe simply stated the supplemental fee was just for reading the opposition and replying to the opposition there shouldn't be a delineation between the stay in the discharge to determine the speed the attorney's fees on the supplemental related to the st contempt motion because we've already sent back the other decisions have now gone back to the bankruptcy quite you know you're saying we should that this should not be sent back to be dealt with with those other things that we've already s spended application to refinance is just as devastating as if the model you're in a holding and there were damages to the moons because they had to pay or continue to pay the higher interest in the higher loan  and so in two respects there were damages in the courts basically said well there's no damages here anyway so i would ask the so hunter be reversed so the court can consider those damages and i think what happened was the no damages here and i think it overlooks that it had already granted part of the motion i don't think the question is so i am conceding then that notice was as of january t transferred it away that those jobs the hook so what could they give i mean well if they did they would then well i guess the other question i had which is maybe neither here nor there is you are he saddled with the subsequent transfer but it was never released in this i guess the simple answer is the moon's believed it was released or we thought it was released and it was only when later on mr moon went theory which then has to in order to exceed on that they have to show that rushmore did something subsequent to the stay being lifted that continued a violation bed predated the lifting of  stay and why isn't why didn't rush more simply rush more simply file a timely response to the motion your honor that we agree that that would have been  better in terms of the case management for the bankruptcy court but the implication of the writing of the adversary proceeding in the adversary complaint as a substitute for a timely response remedy that situation other moves are correct that the complaint also makes reference to the other issues with respect to the the content motion and and repeat some of the defenses based on lack of notice what the purpose of the adversary complaint was essentially to remedy that you process violation in which your property interests without notice so i moved from the record looks to me like i was part of the purpose but the other part of the purpose was to prevent getting defaulted essentially on the motion for contempt isn't that kind of a fair reading of what was going on i don't think so because there had been an initial response here our position would be that that would be an overly expensive interpretation of what what a byelection of the automatic state and resulting dangers would be and we certainly understand that in order to prosecute a motion under three fees if that is done before an answer or if i reject a motion which is filed within the adversary proceeding was not done so i think the court also have to consider whether adopting the moons is viewed as going to interfere with the with the strong policy where the condo where the alleged damage comes from it's not what the focus should now be what rushmore did or did do or say or didn't say in the adversary proceeding but what the moon's did in response to that because we're determining whether there was any damage and on that inquiry here which you will find is that when responded to the adversary they were responding to things such as whether it was a procedure they appropriate to bring it they were responding to it on the marriage there was very little in both the briefing and then the or don't agree with them for the purpose of german the issues should there be further appeals on on those issues but i have nothing to say and or going to them submitting those issues on the just before the evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt rossmore sought to continue it and their attorney stated as a reason secondarily we recently filed an out of his complaint in this meaning the motion for filed and no opposition was filed this was their opposition indirectly and it had to be addressed by the moon's now they're saying the motion to dismiss didn't deal with it's a violation right they were procedural problems with the complaint so i sought to dismiss it on procedural grounds such as attempts to set aside the discharge in the confirmation water years after the south so that doesn't mean that we ignored that the fundamental premises for this complaint was collateral tacked on the motion for contempt so it had to be dealt with but we dealt with it proce rally st and then ultimately rushmore dismissed the complaint oversight is gone and it's a no harm no foul you never filed an answer well we never got that far of course we're not going to dispute or debate if they want to dismiss their complaint because in looking out of the moon's best interest it's not good to have that complaint hanging out there against them so we didn't oppose the dismiss it didn't see any reason why the moon's couldn't perhaps file another motion for contempt for failure to release the lien that was done and then the court even ordered it but in doing its interim order later on to get the  for emotional distress along with their declaration because she said it was suspended she was in a holding pattern is over the court to just say no damages were presented no harm no south i think the underlying reason and again this is just opinion the court felt well i had done enough it had done enough in the st motion for condemned it wasn't going to award anything  want to echo what judge brand said you know will well handle any cases you bring to us but from the client's perspective both client's perspective it sure looks like this is one that ought to get resolved but if that's for you to do we'll we'll do a work