confirmed chapter twelve plan allowed down to remain on the farm and continue operations under an agreement with their largest creditor the bank holding the mortgage on the farm in north dakota state court aspect of the chapter twelve settlement agreement and to confirm plan could be considered under any parole evidence statute unique to north dakota as the result of the state court ruling the state court effectively converted this chapter twelve into a chapter seven i don't think that is an accurate description of the state court system please not the way i read it and then they th the only thing they were allowed to can to consider under the parole evidence statute was to stat quit claim deed in lieu of foreclosure and that was  and that was the problem here the deed in lieu was just every which everybody understood in the bankruptcy proceedings including the bankruptcy court to be just simply security and everybody was treating this as a continuing mortgage on the property and so that none of that was considered in the state court and the problem that we have with that this ruling and the reason we're here now is because  back to this quit claim deed which our position is that that deed or that that state court decision is void because it was subject to a preemptive a decision by the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy court ruled that in confirming a chapter twelve plan confirms the entire plan in the entire agreement and not just i think that resolves this very case about four or five ways we have a prior panel rule control by clean break you propose in race judicata perhaps i could think of some more terms tell me why this are tw sixteen decision doesn't control this case many many ways wear out because it get in our position is that there that the bankruptcy court it's being used as a standard for claim for q preclusion another word saying if you could have brought the claim under rule eighteen you should have brought it and therefore your preferred precluded and i think there's a due process issue with that because has ruled that under rule eighteen you don't have to bring all your class claims at once and for strategic reasons you can leave a claim out and it's not race to the cause so i well maybe counsel when we wrote that were those words this court agreed with the north dakota supreme court and to put it in your terms i don't think this is true but it put it starkly in her terms and not the bankruptcy quietly greater than north dakota pose that is correct and if if if that is if that i mean i would concede that if it's your preclusion is the primary issue here then we're probably dead in the water  i would what judge or judge benton asked was probably a case that would involve issue preclusion because he's speaking up there is resolution of a specific issue oh and and so i mean after if that  the decision of the of the court i mean if that's were if that's where we are have a big problem here the problem that i have with all of these decisions so and say that that was a void decision and it then it would follow all the way up the chain that all of these other decisions are are are moot basically there's a lot of injustice that happened here resulted from the fact that if instead ended up giving away all of their land and all of the their money because they paid it this farm paid off which was never the intent of anybody involved in that bankruptcy including the bankruptcy court and it doesn't make sense to chapter twelve  asking this court to remand this case to the bankruptcy court to allow the equitable remedies to be you know person choosing to is there have to be a change in circumstance for that and political remedy to be available in the bankruptcy well i think i think this this this is a change in circumstance but you're saying it's not you're saying that it's it's been misunderstood from the very  beginning that is correct if the bankruptcy court made a mistake for example or that all the parties in the bankruptcy made a mistake and trying to put forth this agreement that was in fact a transfer of the property that is something that bankruptcy court could remedy because they could reform the agreement they could reform this deed in fact if they had to but the bottom line is they can they could adjust the rights of all of the parties including the guards  here to be fair and equitable under the circumstances just again this case resulted in an extreme injustice to my client because nobody nobody contemplated this transfer of property and that was the nine years of litigation between the parties it started in two thousand and six when palance made their decision to bring the state court action to there's no doubt that under the case law uniformly now throughout the united states state courts and bankruptcy court have concurrent jurisdiction to look at chapter eleven chapter as well and chapter thirteen plans in bankruptcy because uniformly how throughout the entire united states that confirmed plan becomes a contract between the parties which are in the debtor and their creditors as to how those debts will be paid and so a court across the country uniformly of all that state court ha as much ability to interpret those contracts as bankruptcy courts do confirmed by all we're asking this court to do is agree with those court and so a nd or rd or th bite at the apple as this court already addressed not only the claims that they brought preclude as but also any claims that they could have brought are precluded of the supreme court is telling us that it is scolding us repeatedly for looking for not signing cases that can be decided on the basis of preclusion on that basis the settlement agreement that they would give a quick claim be to various for a bank they did that and as they acknowledged in their complaint based upon the terms of the settlement agreement be that the bankruptcy court back in two thousand and six ultimately made a part of their going for a plan and then that settlement agreement the pollens were obligated to do certain things make certain instrument used for the transfer real estate and i and i understand i understand how the north dakota state court resolved that i just understood based on both parties presentation that maybe there was some confusion early on that that was not necessarily the intent even the bank someone from the bank saying no five we didn't intend that to be the result either and i was just wondering it for a factual background  i think i think everybody involved understood that the quitclaim deed would be how in order to make sure that the boards did what they're supposed to do under the settlement agreement and there is no defect in wrote the letter in the record but you're referring to where he was responding to a question by the cattlemen's association as to what the nature of this was that was transferred here to transfer the property and he pointed out that this was supposed to be a financing vehicle this was still a mortgage in fact you know just heard had mortgages that were recorded and they never took those off the record until after the qui no but nobody in that bankruptcy proceed few dist has an outright transfer of that property and it wouldn't make sense to do that anyway in a chapter twelve bankruptcy as we've said there were just to to the bank and the courts were to be given a nd mortgage on that property they knew that so there was there was no question about what the situation of that property was well our position is that they transferred their interest in this agreement to the courts beresford just gave the gores a quit claim deed and so whatever the interest