the trustees modification didn't see a new effective date of the planned to re a value wait liquidation and finally the plan was completed prior to the modification by the trustee now since my briefs are filed i read the court's murdo opinion and i realize that's not going to go very far i would like to reserve that in case this goes up and i do want to make a couple of points on that if i have time later but going to the point my  point there was no property acquired after the filing the debtor had it and the th circuit in greene says to acquire is to purchase to get an ownership interest here the precondition property the form reading some of these retesting cases but obviously title companies and realtors they want to order from the court so we did go through the court but in retrospect we may not be needed to it was his absolutely cording to the beth turn it all over but there was no basis for that and you can't force a debtor to do it you can't compel him the court did rd why what happened to make this property sell for so much more than it was scheduled i mean d effective date of the plan and this is an issue that hasn't been directly addressed by this panel but i did find some nice for you case who by which says that confirmation  effective date of the plan and i found to bankruptcy court cases unfortunately not in my brief that agree there is one liquidation date the date of confirmation that's the effective date you don't change it later on one is out of  western district of washington judge lynch the late and that's what seventy three b r e forty four and then judge james in arizona had the gibson case for fifteen b or seven thirty five in that case interesting lee the property value went down and the debtor tried to change liquidation and the court said no you had liquidation at the time of confirmation and we're not going to give you a new effective date and change the liquidation and so there was no basis to bring the property back in it was the debtors there's no basis to compel him to pay the lump sum over there was no change in the disposable income so the plane could have been confirmed because he couldn't pay for it unless you force him to put that money in which at thirteen dollars is not set up to do that and the final point is about the issue on me i think that's how you say it and i realize this court is probably no he didn't finish complete the plan a couple of things i read flores over and over  necessarily that i agree with flores but at least five times it seems to say if the a c p is thirty six months that's when you have to bring the modification here the modification with bro there has to be a minimum a political commitment period even if there's no disposable income so that a modification can be done within that window and so i give you a rd quote general that isn't the real question the says asking did i want to confirm do you agree that your plan required the debtor to make payments for fifty nine months yes ok and isn't the law modification that a modification can be done any time before the plan is complete past it but it's not that wasn't the issue here i'm saying when i read flores it's five times that says modifications have to be within the political commitment period and i said from the get i'm not sure i agree with that but it is th circuit precedent and i would  the court because this may go up to perhaps revisit this issue in light of murdoch but unfortunately in this case we never get there why because the property never comes in the this chapter thirteen plan the the confirmation appreciation should please turn on whether or not we accepted that post confirmation appreciation is a perk distinct property and there because it wasn't scheduled it may well your honor yes for more than we expected well when you put it that way that's true but i think it's also contemplated it's contemplated by the you have the contemplation that a plan was that he wanted to retain his ransom property and pay its creditors and instead what he's done is a few years after india sector thirteen dollars he sells that rental property and he wants to keep the proceeds and not pay his creditors he said he would sell or refinance he said he would sell to refinance a property so on but i'm assuming that refinance at the beginning was probably the preferred option because he said he wanted to keep the property but say i was probably you could use an option have plenty of cases right now that are predicated upon the debtor refinancing their primary residence to cash out activity and use it to fund the plan so it wouldn't have been thought of that mr black intended to do that with this chapter thirteen plan that usually done to meet other conformation requirements you know the words you don't sell the residence simply to provide more money for creditors you do it to meet the best interest of creditors test me to chapter seven liquidation test or maybe you can't make me sorry you can't make a plan payments that add up to the required payments out of the debtors income so you make up for that by selling a piece of property but you debtors typically don't propose sales just to shift more money to creditors they do it to meet  they must be contributed to a plan allows plan to be funded by property estate and then one thousand three hundred and twenty nine allows a plan to be modified to increase distribution from creditors so that's how we brought in the property a state that's legal basis but then reading stinson it took me while this wasn't a consideration in the lower court but it wasn't a consideration it was brought up and says landis in the bankruptcy court did consider liquidation value as part of this but it really wasn't part of the rulin and pull out they were able to capitalize on that that lower value and they actually there was proceeds that came into the estate and the barbosa court probably found that the appropriate method to bring in additional property state is through a appropriate for the trustee to ratify a plan to bring in funds when the debtor on their own doing took terminated their employment so they turned they changed the purchase account into a cash asset and so was it once they did that the terms of the the court said yes the trustee can bring in that cash asset that was a result of the debtors only quotation to fund the plan and then the other arguments is the timing of modification and i think her sure you are onto something when you said well doesn't that mean that the plan is not complete until the final payments are made so as mr burke has conceded that maybe murd h does does have some weight to this argument i the s r c go opinion and from this panel that was in two thousand and seventeen i think made it very clear that payments under a plan have to continue for the duration provided for in the initial plan absent modification before being considered complete for the purposes of modification and discharge so in the th circuit over since two thousand and five minutes we've had a series of cases that have considered what is a political commitment period mean how does that relate to whether or not a plan can be modified i think if you have a commitment period of thirty six months once you're past that commitment period tend to agree that it's that a modification should bring in additional income by it by an outside party not the debtor themselves may be an issue however this is a modification to bring in again property i think you have seven minutes my notes are correct go ahead please thank you i'm sure i won't use all of them make a few points the confirm plan didn't say that or provide for an adjustment  is not relevant to this panel nd bergy i'll quote it an examination of the basic structure of chapter thirteen makes it clear that the debtors cannot be compelled to use the proceeds from the sale of pretty petition real estate to pay creditors under perm chapter thirteen dollars plan i understand disposable income was an issue in this case but aside from that it's clear it's not it cannot be used to pay the go up i'm going to at least put in the argument that the plane was completed i understand it's not going to go very far here but i thought well the status of payments isn't really disputed right i mean there's no dispute that your client made the payment your client's says was me right and it was done before the modification if that's accepted then right i don't really need it to come in that was just a to back t essence what we're doing we're penalize ing the debtor for paying maybe eight months early is that what really want to do what's the cutoff what if in month fifty eight he pays everything o yuki that's not a completed plan so you've paid a lot of eight months early so wait out the time they can start taking their nd class and the trustee can start putting things together i don't see how he committed some mortal sin by paying it off early and he volunteered to pay that  course i encouraged them because i see when people get money they don't pay it it goes away so i said you need to complete this pay this and it's actually paid a little more than i think he was even supposed to because i don't think he had four thousand more separate this to bankruptcy court decisions that back that up and what's interesting about judge changes cases where the property did go down the tenor tries to refinance and he said no you're stuck on that liquidation and so it covers both sides of the equation the required in an initial plan i'm not saying that there has to be a basis behind it needed the disposable income went up or perhaps maybe a postposition windfall would come in but what we're talking about here is just a pre condition asset that was already accounted for in the debtors getting penalize because it went up and he would have suffered if it went down it went down the ten thousand dollars and i went to modify and said well we're just going to pay ten thousand dollars to trust to be all over that thousand dollars after the st year i need to modify it the car now is only worth eight thousand dollars that's why the effective date has to be at the time of liquidation but going back to your question i'm not saying that people can't pay more but there has to be a basis it wasn't here they admit that their disposable income didn't change we know that they can't force a preposition assets to come in nothing happened besides that the property went up in value seventy years old this is