at all related to anybody's bankruptcy one of the trust beneficiaries douglas miller filed a chapter eleven bankruptcy in montana the bankruptcy court took jurisdiction over the partitioned the main asset of the trust the land that it owns and distributed that to the beneficiaries without distributing or otherwise dealing with in any fashion or another the main liability of the trust which was the attorney fees legal argument here is actually pretty simple that's right filed a valid proof of claim it was an informal proof of claim in the sense that it wasn't on the official form but as the court can see by looking at it it's a fairly complete was no litigation the way we can tell there was no litigation it was number one the pretrial order if you read the pretrial order you'll see that there is no mention of davis right from maine nor is there any mention of trust services in any way shape or form the only reference in the pretrial order at all is is to the bankruptcy law firm and there's a particular attorney involved who is mentioned by name in that order and it's not u there was certainly no evidence at trial with regard to davis writes remains bills as you may see the record is absolutely devoid of anything like that and the reason it's devoid of anything like that is nothing exists in the claim which was litigated at least in part in that the proceeding the january twenty fifth order which deals with an and finally determined three other matters too there are two other matters that have been dismissed as move that are on reconsideration so as the court has indicated there are a number of matters involving mr miller before the court in terms of this specific ca hundred five by the davis right firm but and the application for fees was submitted their billing was submitted as an exhibit in this trial so i just as a point of factual clarification that i believe is in the fourteen hundred page transcript like your honor i would it's our position that they claim was addressed by the bankruptcy court in its january twenty fifth order that if there was evidence regarding that i would indicate that the bankruptcy court order was fairly general and it did trust claim which by the way davis rightest counsel for the trust filed both their application for fees and the six hundred three thousand claim for the for the trust the bankruptcy courts disposition of that was to reduce that entire amount to have only the sum of eighty six mentioned in two fashions one by following their application for attorney's fees and second by calling the trust group of claims and i think it is perhaps an overstatement at least by david wright for me to indicate that the debtor simply said that this was an informal proof of claim if you look at the objection that the debtor had filed they take they took two alternative that are took two alternative positions first he said if this is an application for feet under the under rule to a one six the local rule for feet it isn't proper because  were improper so as a as a point in that regard the debtor did take alternative positions on that and did not simply admit that it was an informal proof of claim second on the procedure in this bankruptcy and i realize that this this panel the seen a fair amount of it but it's fairly voluminous and i'm going to try to keep on task with this particular appeal after the trial which involved five days of trial ended three years ago yesterday had dozens of witnesses and hundreds and hundreds of exhibits the court ended on january twenty fifth its decision in this matter davis writes from english counsel of record on behalf of the margaret on miller trust they certainly had notice of that i understand their issue that you process wasn't involved but i think the fact that they got notice of that they could cite reconsideration in addition subsequently two months later the court went through the confirmation process and again davis writes from maine if they felt their proof of claim was not being dealt with could certainly have  remain takes the position that despite waiting all of this period of time despite the fact they were counsel of record and filed this proof of claim they waited and then filed a motion for order to show cause why mr miller should not have to put them out on the side for them for distribution underage confirm plan as the court has i believe picked up on the questions to counsel for davis rights remain their proof of claim cannot be considered a crime if they should because they were asking for two hundred fifteen thousand dollars and the amount that they had made and later that they were owed is only seventy one thousand dollars so clearly their argument that it was a crime a fake should proof of claim as recognized by the bankruptcy court cannot stand in addition excuse me the the language mr miller in mr miller's plan about what allowed claimants has been subject to debate in a number of the appeals and i just want to clear that mr miller's position is that the being allowed claim there's only one of three ways you can do that the first way if it's got if the claims killed and it's essentially unlimited non contingent undisputed that does not apply with respect to davis right for me second if they file a proof of claim and it's not objected to and that is not the case that we have here the final mechanism is that they file a proof of davis right to remain serious accordingly was proof a claim has to be allowed in the seventy one thousand and amount different than what it was filed for i believe that that they can't have it both ways essentially what they're saying is the bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction trust and probably counsel prior to the trial in this case and it is at least my understanding that that is what the court is referring to i can't as i stand it stand here for the court today indicate that that is clearly what the court was referring to discussing with mr binney the problem these are forty five thousand dollars i think refer to but i'm not positive because of course no evidence really was presented at the trial or i think he's referring to amounts that were actually on the seven hundred six which is a state tax return filed by the  and the next piece that he's going on about with the thirty four thousand dollars from mrs miller's chapter eleven pays me none of this actually makes any sense it's very very hard to trace these numbers fact any facts in existence at all and this was the judge that actually handled mrs miller's chapter eleven i believe and i think that what he's doing is just trying to remember things from a prior case and getting them  wrong you know it is it is literally impossible to try to figure out what what he's saying there with regard to the bankruptcy that's prim cause and it clearly states that we're asking for one third of the two hundred fifteen thousand dollars so there's now and i think i'm right there are three beneficiaries to this trust there were three beneficiaries  snavely settled with one of the other beneficiaries prior to this time so at at this particular point in time the global resolution of the bankruptcy trustee who all i can say is that parties deserve notice and an opportunity to be heard adjudicated that's a fairly basic principle of our court system and so soon ing our claim in this whole thing without giving us notice that and so we were stuck with trying to figure out how to raise this issue in some other kind of format we finally filed the order to show cause as being kind of the only way to do