concerns the finding and ruling of the district court in reviewing the turnover order and mr leask case the district court made clear error of law by finding that the adversary proceeding filed the mr lee's case met the requirements to be deemed an objection to mr lee's claim of tenancy by the entireties properties held by mr lee and his wife at the time of his bankruptcy petition was filed  board concerned a in order but an appeal from an order dismissing a chapter thirteen plan and basically the court said that that is not a final order because it did not finally adjudicate that particular proceeding in other words the dismissal denial of the chapter thirteen plan would have resulted in the debtor coming back to propose a new plan there would be other proceedings that's not the case that we have here bankruptcy is in fact a series of different kinds of proceedings turn over order has been held by many courts including the if this court reverses the district court order that results in fixing those rights if the court affirms the district court those rights remain  fixed there is another if it's only of a position i mean the turnover order only talks about possession it doesn't say whether it's part of the estate or not part of the estate the only thing that remains because the properties have been is distribution the proceeds and those distributions are simply administrative proceeding in the bankruptcy court doesn't devolve into more litigation or other other proceedings because the the properties were liquidated it simply comes down to distribution that's an ordinary process in the bankruptcy court so how can the turnover order is final and finally it indicates the relationship between the parties well that particular ordered the did not recognize the tenants by the entireties exemption claimed by the debtor that's the fixing of the relationship between the parties  yes or yes or and because there was a final judgment in the adversary proceeding the court went on to find that that was the objection to the exemption and that's how we got to where we are now  did you want me to respond to the nice circuit case of google use a i think the arguments are very similar there google user is a little bit easier to understand because there was an adversary proceeding dealing with discharge ability in the appeal was taken after only four of the elements of the discharge ability had been adjudicated there remained in fact a trial to go forward on fraudulent intent so i think that's not what we have here we have a final order it is the end of a discrete proceeding and therefore a final order is required under one fifty eight if we agreed  the trustees position that the adversary action to determine that the transfer to the test and thirty was a fraudulent transfer and that constitute that checks and so we agreed with that would would we then not have jurisdiction over the turnover order since that was the final order that that alter the relationship between the parties if so we agree it constitutes an objection that's mainly what the issue is before over the turnover order i don't believe so why is that our position is of course there was no valid objection leading rule four thousand and three but i'm saying is something that we disagree with and determined there is about there was a valid of that constitute a valid objection constituted a valid objection there's nothing remaining for the bankruptcy court to do thank you  let me cover what i'm quite why wasn't it a valid objection i mean that's really the core of your sub's yes merits argument so why not let's address rule four thousand and three because i think that is the crux of the issue an objection either complies with four thousand three or does not and i think we all agree that under taylor a law versus the goal there must be a timely objection there is an issue here over whether or not the adversary complaint that was filed within the thirty days of conclusion of the meeting of creditors was in fact timely because it constituted an objection meeting the requirements of four thousand three of our only timely so much as forum or as i understand your argument this form isn't good enough it's it's also the glee issue that rule four thousand and three is not just form there is substance there in the substance is that number one voters no special form of objection the deemed whether it's a surrogate or a ever serious complaint it still has to be clear and comply with standards of rule four thousand free one of those elements that is critical is actual notice of what the objection to the exemption is the trustee he says they're there it was clear because they were filed this adversary action that they be objection half well couple of things first of all there's no prayer or inning mention in the adversary complaint if that is deemed to be the objection then there is a basis to object to the exemption but let me finish that thought because there's no objection to the exemption then there is no hearing in the other serie proceeding which is required under r four thousand three a specific hearing on the basis for the objection in the be objecting party will always have the burden of proof on that they have or sorry proceeding was litigated your client resisted did he not know what he was in the room for did he not know what was going on i mean i'm i'm having trouble understanding the substance of this but the ipod has a got a colon a been sipping some water so for us this is whether the produce is that kind of response i love understand got bad weather my office two lots of flu going around i look at it this way  an objection in the standard format is before the court in the main case in the specifically states the basis for the objection and there is a hearing if you go to an adversary proceeding this is completely distinct from an objection here's here's how i provide the notice this comes down to notice it does in part because look there are two separate proceedings here and i'll explain that mr lee's debtor's exemption claim of exemption two tenants by the entireties property involved his interest in the tenants by the entireties property that was the piece of the bankruptcy a sta if there had been a recovery based on the objection it would have been the debtors interest only you never served proceeding you've got a different situation here naming both husband and wife and if there is a successful conclusion in favor of the plaintiff you've got a recovery of the entire tenants by the entirety on understand why giving too much notice aren't involving an extra person whose rights would be affected property is now part of the bankruptcy is i understand that but where in the record do you find the leap from a judgment to disallowance of the exemption and if there is no disallowance of the exemption of the it doesn't just vaporize why does the adversary proceeding exist i mean it seems to me clearly inherent those two have to run together and if your client didn't think so why would your client a bother to contest the adversary proceeding  the debtor i don't hear an answer that i shipping you the s k the trustee could have logically decided the debtor has a better claim of the exemption because he held the property for a number of years and then it was transferred to his wife when they got married the trustee could have looked at that and said i'm going to file the adversary because i want the wife's the transferees interest as part of the bankruptcy estate but i may not have such a good  case as the debtors exemption goes there was never a hearing on this exact i really don't understand what difference there could be between those two and eat all that happens you pull the wife and you pull another party to contest what the trustee wants to do somebody who can say i'm innocent third party in my rights are being screwed here from the perspective of the trustee i don't see how that's supposed to be an easier route i've got a couple minutes left an objection says debtor i am going to ask the court to disallow your exemption that's exactly what an objection is that is not the content of the adversary procedure he has  trust action without having the adversary proceeding yes you know it is me for interrupting you yes and that's the way this should have gone so it's clear there's an objection to the exemption followed by the adversary proceeding we would not be here today that's the bright rule that i'm trying to get this court to see that if you don't comply with rule four thousand and three we're going to have these kinds of proceedings were no one really is on notice as thank you your honors and for paynter on behalf of the chapter seven trustee danesfield you have any questions why not give the notice in the form of the debtor argues you should have because the adversarial proceeding was notice it was clear notice the only reason why an adversarial proceeding was filed was to object to the debtors tennis by the entireties exemption if the property is not held in tennis by the entireties there is no tennis by the entireties objection and if you look at the record on appeal it's very clear that everybody including the debtor in a debtors council understood that exactly what it was all about at three forty one meeting the meeting of creditors the debtors council announced that we are claiming an exemption in these t v properties under some water viendo the trustee then said well what kind of consideration was given for the transfer to keep i e none did the debtor have creditors that existed at the time of the transfer yes he did the trustee says i think i'll be looking at it fraudulent transfer case on we hired counsel me continued three forty one meeting was held the debtor and his counsel appeared at that meeting to creditors in december and it was explained to the trustee want to pursue this any further pursuant to rule two zero for example the trustee determined we don't need any more information to object to this exemption just go ahead and file the adversarial proceeding that's the way you have to eight document called objection to sampson but i really would have accomplished anything because under hawaii law and under the bankruptcy rules you have to name the transfer  as a defendant in a fraudulent transfer action and also help us with his suggestion that rule for over three specifically requires what's your response to his zero three objection it does not it clearly does not on the plain face of rule four zero three or under five twenty two l of the bankruptcy code eleven u s c five point two zero five twenty two also as you have to file an objection or the property is deemed exempt rule four zero three only sets a time limit for the filing of that objection and there is two time limits in there one has to do with filing objection within thirty days the conclusion of the three forty one the creditors meeting the other one has to do with filing it within one year if the property was privately transferred if the exemption was frantically claimed the you know you need a rule leader five twenty two or rule four zero three say what the form of the objection is and all of the cases before taylor recognized these various proceedings the cases after taylor recognized various proceedings as object observed as objections to acclaimed exemption taylor didn't change that what the bankruptcy court or the district court did hear this not offend taylor in any way yes  mentioned the other timing issue under four thousand three two i mean could you solve this problem merely by filing an objection now is the case still pending or it's actually we could we could file an objection today and it would be timely under four zero zero three b two we did not do that and haven't done that yet because we are of the firm believe that our objection filed within the thirty days the adversarial proceeding was in fact an objection to the claimed exemption and that's the only way you can resolve the debtor's right to that exemption is via an adversarial proceeding certainly we could have filed a document just said objection  objection to exemption but that wouldn't have accomplished anything other than avoided this particular appeal and that's regretful happy to say but your honour's correct this is the ultimate in form over substance i mean the debtor has never argued and the reason why this comes up this issue regarding an exemption comes up in the context of a turnover order is because the trustee clearly objected the debtors claimed exemption there was an adversarial proceeding there was a trial more due process than would have been granted the debtor or the debtor spouse under motions proceeding and then some year and a year and a half after the filing of the adversarial proceeding when the trustee moves to get physical possession of the property was the first time the debtor ever said gee whiz i claimed an exemption and if you look at my exemption and you look at the liens against the property the properties underwater so i shouldn't have to turn it over but let me ask you this jurisdiction question if if we agreed with your theory of the case that the  adversary action did constitute an objection do we have jurisdiction over this appeal under bullard but the turnover order presumably does nothing but change position i believe you do and i would agree with mr pett its analysis on this particular issue the although it comes up the exemption issue comes up in this funny context of of a turnover order in ruling on the t turnover order the bankruptcy court determined that the adversarial proceeding was in fact an objection doesn't say anything in there of course in the order of just as turnover of position so wasn't it is it your theory that the adversary action in the determination that was a fraudulent transfer didn't turn the property over to the estate i'm just wondering how much under your theory of the case how the churn over order  is always property of the estate and under a y e law it's exempt to the extent that the creditors of one of the spouses cannot reach it's always subject to the claims of joint creditors in this case there was not which is another reason why the adversarial proceeding was an objection to an exemption because the only reason for filing it was to bring it if it was claimed exempt bring it back in the estate for the benefit of the debtors individual creditors there were no joint creditors husband or wife creditors in this case so the turnover ordered  to alter the turnover order only said that the debtor had to turn over physical possession of the property when the adversarial proceeding when the trustee prevailed on the adversarial proceeding and then the exemption was denied  defraud his creditors that was the basis of his of his exemption that was the basis of our at the circle proceeding the adversarial proceeding challenge the very basis of the debtors exemption after that the else and there was other properties that the debtor was refusing to turn over monies firearms other things and so the trustee filed a turnover order requiring the debtor to turn over physical possession of the property to the trustee so the trustee could sell it and it was in the context of that turnover order that the debtor said for the first time all gee whiz the properties exempt if you look at the amount of the exemptions and if you look at the amount of the  everything the property is underwater so it shouldn't be turned over and we said you can't be serious i mean i think what i wrote the reply memory minute said that there can't be serious there is no exemption it's gone it's been gone for a year so let me seriously interested in your argument is it the denial of the exemption that gives us jurisdiction or is the turnover order i think that the appeal is from the turnover order and in ruling on the turnover order the court determined bankruptcy court determined that the adversarial proceeding was in fact an objection to the exemption and that there was no exemption so the property was not underwater and should be this simple possession should be turned over to the trustee to be administered for the benefit of the creditors of the estate so it's kind of the way the exemption issue came up in the context of the turnover order it's kind of unusual but i think that in so ruling what the court the bankruptcy court did was basically a fixed the rights of the parties regarding this turn over an exemption issue now the court didn't say in the turnover order that i'm you know i'm granting it or denying it and granting objection to an exemption that had already been done that's what the court said no that's already been in my mind an alligator's to a ruling of a denial of a dispositive motion there's always something left in this particular instance and i agree with mr pettitte on this in this regard after the turnover order was granted there really wasn't anything left to do other than for the trustee to administer these assets and make distribution but because the debtor appealed the court said you were going to hold all the assets all the assets are held until further order of the bankruptcy court in any event so that's the context and then there was still a sales order after that i'm sorry there was a sales order even after the turnover order was that's correct oh so it wasn't the last thing this was these these subsequent orders w estate i believe that the adversarial proceeding fixed the rights of the parties with respect to the exemption and there was an appeal taken from that judgment in done deal and we are side was a done deal the debtor just raised it again in the context of this turnover order and we course want to deny when the court rejected that then he appealed from  that but what the turnover did is it gave physical possession of the pollute properties to the trustee so his realty could show them and sell them and the sale was brought before the court and was confirmed by the court there was an appeal from that order also and that's the one that you've taken under submission i notice i have forty six seconds is there any other question to give them back to us i would be glad to thank you your honor me make one quick statement about the jurisdiction here in the turnover order the objection to the motion for turnover was the debtor's claim of tennis by the entireties exemption so in effect the court overruled that opposition in essence of denying the claim of exemptions the ninth circuit has ruled that in order denying a claim of exemption is a final appealable order that is pre lit versus batley one eighty one if third in ten forty eight just in closing i want to go back to taylor because taylor said among other things deadlines may lead to unwelcome results but they prompt parties to act that's the timeliness that we're talking about and produce finality we didn't get finality here because  filed two days before the thirty day period to object was running that thirty day period apply to a trustee as i as i read but the trustee has a second chance but only for the