[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
You may proceed.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Good afternoon, Your Honors.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
There's a saying in law that bad facts make bad law.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
And I believe at the core of this, in trying to understand both the rulings of the trial court and the rulings of the Ninth Circuit BAP, both of them took notice of the fact in their memorandum of decision of the trial court and in the memorandum of decision of the Ninth Circuit.

[00:00:41] Speaker 03:
that after the 2003 sale order had been issued, there was a subsequent agreement made between the parties which varied from the terms of the order approving the 2003 sale.

[00:00:54] Speaker 03:
This resulted in a sanctions award against all of the parties, my client, the appellee, as well as the broker in the case.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
And the judge in his comments was very pointed in saying that he was extremely unhappy

[00:01:11] Speaker 03:
that this had been done in violation of the 2003 order and the terms of that order, that they had modified it, and as a reason, opposed relatively substantial sanctions against all three.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
Thereafter, after first, in response to a motion for summary judgment, acknowledging that the court had jurisdiction, that this action had arisen under the bankruptcy by virtue of the, what we call the Morschauser order,

[00:01:41] Speaker 03:
seven order whereby Mr. Morschauser purchased two of the lots.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
That was after the 2003 sale order.

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
And after assuming jurisdiction and correctly, I believe, acknowledging that the court had jurisdiction, did an about face.

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
And on his own motion, the court indicated that it felt that it did not have jurisdiction.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
As I've set forth in my briefs and as I'm prepared to discuss with the court today I think that that was the initial ruling was the correct ruling and I think that the reason the rationale behind doing this is that the trial court was upset with both parties with all parties by virtue of their conduct and It was that which motivated the court

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
to dismiss the entirety of the action, and the court chose that avenue as dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
Aren't the claims state law claims?

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
The claims that are being asserted here?

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
Yeah, they involve state law.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
They're not state law claims.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
They're bankruptcy claims, but they involve state law in determining the nature and extent and validity of those.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
And why are they bankruptcy claims?

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
In bankruptcy, the estate has obligations to administer that estate.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
That means to sell... The relief that you're seeking, and this is, you know, really what I'm asking, which is how is the relief that you're seeking going to affect the orders of the bankruptcy court?

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
It's not going to affect the debtor, the creditor.

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
This is as between Mr. Moorschauser and the third-party broker who got the assignment.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
Isn't that correct?

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
It doesn't affect any party in the bankruptcy or any of the orders of the bankruptcy.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
Well, all of those parties were parties in the bankruptcy when the order was issued.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
And I think the critical... No, and Mr. Moorschauser was not.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
Mr. Moorschauser was part of a partnership that was the debtor in the bankruptcy.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
And then there was the creditor, which was Continental Capital.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
But Mr. Moorschauser himself was not a party to the bankruptcy.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
He was a party to the bankruptcy in that he was a party to the purchase of lots two and three by the two, that subject by the Morish Hauser order subject to the liens and encumbrances on those parcels, correct?

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
He did it subject to those liens and encumbrances and subject to the bankruptcy court recognizing that he had a, because he took subject to those, he, as well as the trustee, as well as any

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
interested parties, the language that the court used, had the ability to seek a determination as to the nature, extent, and validity of those liens which they assumed.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Why is that?

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
I mean, I saw that the bankruptcy court put in that order that it would retain jurisdiction to determine in subsequent actions the nature, extent, and validity of any linear encumbrance upon the subject property.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
But why, years later, would it have

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
the right to decide some state law dispute about the scope of a lien between two parties that has just absolutely no effect on the bankruptcy of the state at all?

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
I think what's critical is not establishing, first of all, I agree with the bankruptcy appellate panel.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
If the court did not have jurisdiction at that time, it couldn't establish jurisdiction by virtue of retaining jurisdiction.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
You can't bootstrap.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
You can't just say, well, I retain jurisdiction to do X, and Congress hasn't given you jurisdiction to do X. So you have to independently establish it apart from language retaining it.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
And that's what I'm trying to explain, that the bankruptcy court, at the time it issued that order, most certainly had jurisdiction to determine the nature, extent, and validity of the secured claims.

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
That was within its province, in the bankruptcy court, to do that.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
What happened is they— So why is that?

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
If Morshauser was willing to take the property subject to whatever the liens were, why would the bankruptcy court have any authority to decide what the nature of those liens were against other parties in a way that wouldn't produce anything for the estate?

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, it did produce something to the estate, and that is Mr. Morshauser would not have purchased those claims.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
but for the retention of jurisdiction.

[00:06:18] Speaker 03:
First of all, there's two things in the order.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
There's the retention of jurisdiction provision, and then there's provision in the sale order at 1ER 32, where it says the sale is subject to all existing liens and encumbrances.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
However, without prejudice to the trustee or any party in interest, including Morshauser, to bring appropriate actions before this court,

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
to release, discharge, or determine the validity of any leaner encumbrance.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
With Morshauser having the right to demand release of any such leaner encumbrance.

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
In other words, that was a recognition of the fact that at that time,

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
The court had the right to make that determination.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
Let me make sure I understand this, what you're arguing.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
So, Morschhauser consents to the assignment.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
He knew about the assignment of parcel two and note two to the broker, correct?

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
Assume so, yes.

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
I think the answer is yes to that question.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
The record makes that plain.

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
And then he purchases the parcel subject to the lien and encumbrances on it.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
And what you're saying is he only agreed to purchase those parcels subject to the liens and encumbrances because the bankruptcy court had retained jurisdiction.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
And but for that retention of jurisdiction, he wouldn't have purchased the parcels on which he actually consented and knew about the assignment on.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
And then after that, he waited

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
some number of years before he asked the court to resolve the liens and encumbrances on those parcels?

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
Two separate issues.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
First is the issue of the brokers, whether or not the brokers had a right to be compensated and had a lien on the property.

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
That's independent of the issue of whether or not the appellee in this case, CONCAP, had a valid lien at that time.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
The complaint alleges that it did not have a valid lien because it had been paid in full on its valid lien and therefore it had no lien.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
So the two issues of first of all whether or not the broker was entitled to compensation and had a lien is separate and apart from the determination of whether CONCAP had a lien on the property and has a lien on the property.

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
They currently maintain a lien on the property.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
So those are two separate issues.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
And with regards to the second issue, and that is whether or not CONCAP had a valid lien, the extent of validity and enforceability of that lien, as of the date that order in 2007 was issued,

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
that was a decision for the bankruptcy court to make.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
The court could have- Well, you're saying that he would not have asked for that order in 2007, but for the retention of jurisdiction by the bankruptcy court, but then waited until much later to seek relief on his state law claims to quiet title?

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
I don't understand that- Again, two separate issues.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
Let me see if I can break them up.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
First of all, the order for sale, the 2000 order for sale,

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
is a bundle of sticks.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
It has a number of provisions in them, all of which constitute the terms and conditions of that sale.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
So he bought that property subject to, as the language I just quoted, subject to those liens and conditions, but without prejudice to his ability to contest those.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
You said 2007 order of sale.

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
Do you mean 2007 order of sale?

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
I'm talking about what I call the Morschauser sale of July 5, 2007.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
That's the 2007 order.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
2007, right.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
I misspoke.

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
And that is the bundle of sticks.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
That is what he bought.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
He bought it subject to that, but with an ability for the bankruptcy court, which had jurisdiction, could have made that determination in an adversary proceeding or otherwise.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
Or that.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
Let's just assume that Mr. Morschauser wouldn't have asked for the purchase of these parcels.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
I think this is what you're saying.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
He wouldn't have agreed to purchase these encumbered parcels, but for knowing that the bankruptcy court was retaining jurisdiction.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
Essentially your honor I'm saying it's a bundle of sticks and it's hard to decide what exactly what piece made it of certain decision-making in his process Did he buy it because just because of the price did he buy it because of the price right back to the question that Judge Collins asked you which is Just because the Bankruptcy Court has that language and he asks for it and then he relies on it doesn't make it so he never then asked for the Bankruptcy Court to address

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
any quiet title claims with respect to the liens and encumbrances on those parcels.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
And today, you're standing here and saying, because he relied on that language, because it was in the order, that somehow creates this jurisdiction.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
But that's precisely the problem that I think Judge Collins is asking about, which cannot be, that is not what creates jurisdiction for the bankruptcy court.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
Again, Your Honor, let me split that into two.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
First of all, why wasn't it filed immediately?

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
Why wasn't it filed until 2012?

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
I don't know why it took that long to bring this action in the bankruptcy court.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
And after the bankruptcy proceeding was closed?

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
And the closing of the bankruptcy, and I've provided a citation for that, the closing of the bankruptcy in and of itself does not divest the court of jurisdiction.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
Does the debtor even exist anymore?

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, they were suing each other, so I assume this partnership has been dissolved?

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
The debtor, I don't believe the debtor is active.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
I don't believe it exists.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
So in terms of waiting, once a court has jurisdiction, it doesn't lose jurisdiction, neither by the mere passage of time or anything else.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
Once it has jurisdiction, if this court finds that the court had jurisdiction to enter the order and to enter an order in which

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
It said it was without prejudice, subject to the lien, but without prejudice to Morshauser's right to bring an action in this court to do that.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
If the court, the bankruptcy court, had jurisdiction to do that at that time, and buttressed by the fact that it separately said it retained jurisdiction, but I'm not saying that retention of jurisdiction creates it.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
I'm saying that the bankruptcy system, and specifically, as I've quoted, Section 157-B2A and O and K, I believe, those are sections where in the code says that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine the validity, nature, and extent of liens on the property.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
So the court had jurisdiction to do that at that time and it indicated that it was keeping that jurisdiction as a result of a condition of the sale.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
which is in the order, which is part and parcel of this bundle of sticks that makes up the order.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
If that is true— I assume you're going to want to save some time for rebuttal, but before you sit down, I have another question for you, which is the broker.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
Are you relying on any aspect in your jurisdictional argument on any aspect of the bankruptcy court's orders related to the broker?

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, I believe that's a completely separate issue.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Um, yeah, I'll, I'll reserve a minute.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
We will hear now, um, from Ms.

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
Saronne.

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
Did I pronounce that correctly?

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
Good afternoon.

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, um, my client,

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
and I are relying on the sound decision of the bankruptcy appellate court.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
This was a state law claim, as Mr. Wade has just informed you, regarding real property, and it was done outside in the hallway and not subject to the trustee.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
in any way, but was sort of slid in under the table after the fact.

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
We would consider that a little bit of bad faith in that.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
And I believe that these are all state claims that could be resolved in state court.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
They're between two creditors, two debtors.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
They have nothing to do with the trustee.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
It's not a claim against the trustee.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
They do not arise from the administration of the bankruptcy account and they are, they don't satisfy the rising in criteria or the but for test that does not apply.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
Mr. Wade's arguments are asserting that it happened because it happened.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
So secure it as bootstrapping.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
Just so that I understand the facts, you know, Mr. Wade is referring to the retention of jurisdiction to decide an issue in the future.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
Did the, to your knowledge, did the bankruptcy court ever say anything about the substance of any issue related to Deed of Trust 2 as applied to Parcel 3?

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor, I did not.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
It's my understanding that retention of jurisdiction over a matter of bankruptcy court is created by statute, not by court order.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
The bankruptcy code is very specific and a statutory means of relief.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
So we would just ask that this court deny

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
Mr. Wade's client.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
We do not believe that this is a core proceeding or rising out of the paper.

[00:16:47] Speaker 02:
I have one question.

[00:16:47] Speaker 02:
Suppose Mr. Morshauser, prior to the 2007 sale, had said, I'm not going to go forward with this sale unless I get an upfront determination of what these liens mean.

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
Would the bankruptcy court then have had jurisdiction to decide the status of the liens in order to then accomplish the sale of the property for the benefit of the estate?

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
I don't believe so.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
It has to be an actual fact that happened, not a suppose this happens in the future.

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
No, I get to ask hypothetical questions.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
I'm asking hypothetical questions.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
Suppose it had played out that way.

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
Would the bankruptcy court, in that hypothetical situation where Mr. Moore-Shazer asks upfront for the determination

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
because he won't agree to the sale at all and the trustee wants to accomplish the sale, could the bankruptcy court in that scenario then determine the status of the lien, clarify the value of the property so that the sale could go forward?

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
I don't believe so.

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
I don't believe it can retain jurisdiction when there was none there in the first place.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
This isn't something that the bankruptcy court would be doing in order to accomplish a sale of an asset of the estate for the benefit of the estate.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
And in order to accomplish the sale, the bankruptcy court would need to determine the value of the asset and resolve the dispute

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
over that so that the sale can then be accomplished.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
Wouldn't it have jurisdiction to do that?

[00:18:32] Speaker 01:
Would that have been the case?

[00:18:33] Speaker 01:
Yes, but that's not what happened.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
But now his argument, as I understand it, is that if the court could do it that way, why couldn't it just say, well, I'll approve the sale now, but subject to that issue being carried later in the case?

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
And why do you say yes?

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
I want to understand when you say probably yes or perhaps yes.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
I mean, that really is the crux of some of the questioning, you know, that we are presenting to the parties.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
Why, and I have a similar question as Judge Collins, if at the time, before the 2007 order was entered and Mr. Moorschauser was wanting to purchase the parcels, but before entering the order asked the court to resolve

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
the liens and encumbrances on those parcels, or after the order, if he had asked the bankruptcy court to resolve the liens and encumbrances, would that have been appropriate?

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
And I think your response just now was yes.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
And I want to understand why you're saying that.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
Why then would that be an arising in, arising under, related to, why under that analysis would one of those three statutory bases for jurisdiction be fulfilled?

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
Maybe I misstated it, but I do not.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
You said I said yes, I do not believe that they had.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
They would have retained jurisdiction over an act that was done in.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
Without their approval outside concerning state law.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
Claims between two non debtors.

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
It simply wasn't before the Bankruptcy Court.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
So what do you make of that language in the order that talks about the resolution of the liens and encumbrances on the parcels?

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
If there had been retained jurisdiction, whether to make somebody pay or not.

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
But the point that Mr. Wade failed to inform you that Mr. Morchauser

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
agreed to the sale of the property to satisfy a deed of trust, and it came up short, or short, maybe $150,000.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
But over the years, he has used stalling and appeal after appeal.

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
The gap in cases from the 2007 order and the 2012 when he applied to reopen or to litigate that, to have the court litigate it,

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
was because he was filing multiple claims in state court alleging fraud and that he had been, they had forged his signature.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
When all those claims were denied and the appeals on him denied, then he did a little forum shopping and said, hey, I'm gonna go back to the bankruptcy court.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
I don't think he thought or believed when he made the assignment, when he purchased it, when he went along,

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
It wasn't until 2012, after he had lost all his claims in the state court, that he decided to try the bankruptcy court.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
Now, as I understand it, your clients don't actually dispute that there is, from your point of view, you're satisfied, you don't assert any claim or lean against this property, is that correct?

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
Mr. Kalias, who represents Con Capital, did offer in 2007 to give the, to release the, to reconvey.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Morchauser never did it.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
But there is an outstanding shortage from the sale of the property.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
He had agreed to take the property in lieu of payment.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
It was supposed to be $1,100,000 and then another $150,000.

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
So in whatever court would hear this dispute, would CONCAP be asserting a claim that it's entitled to something?

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
Yes, it would.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
Do you know why the broker isn't here in this court?

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
Because the broker was a party below, is an appellee, but has filed nothing so far as I understand.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
When the 2003 deal was made, the broker expressly waived his right to a commission.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
But then that got superseded by the later order of the court, which retroactively, Nunk Protunk approved a commission in the form of the assignment of Deed of Trust 2 for whatever value it was worth, which the court said, I'm not going to determine.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
he would seemingly be the party who has an interest in ascertaining the value of Deed of Trust II, and he's not here, which is very odd, isn't it?

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
No, he's never made a claim.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
My understanding is that he didn't do that until after the 2006 order, at which time Mr. Murchauser decided to make a claim.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
on his behalf.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
You still have five minutes on the clock, so you can say additional argument if you want.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
No, I think I've said it all.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
We're looking at the same facts and thinking it means different things, which is why we have you.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Council.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
Then we'll hear a rebuttal from Mr. Wade.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
The section I was referring to when I say that it's defined as a core proceeding, an action to determine the nature, extent, and validity of liens on property that's property of the estate, is 28 USC, B, 2, A, K, and O. Those are subsections of that.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
which specifically go to the administration of the estate.

[00:25:13] Speaker 02:
In summary, you left down a digit.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
You said 28 USC B 157 157 B to interpret these provisions that you're talking about talk specifically about how the court is resolving these issues as to

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
the estate.

[00:25:35] Speaker 00:
So there is the resolution of these liens or encumbrances or issues go in your to the benefit of one of the parties to the bankruptcy.

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
So the estate would benefit from that.

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
You know, I don't disagree with you that if what the outcome of the bankruptcy courts work here is to say, oh, look, I need to resolve these issues because it's actually going to yield in some additional

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
proceeds to the estate that we might be in the world of a rising and a rising under relating to.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
But that's not what's happening here.

[00:26:08] Speaker 00:
Nothing is going to change with respect to the proceeds to the estate based on the resolution of the claims your client is seeking to have the court resolve.

[00:26:17] Speaker 03:
But it did at the time the court had jurisdiction over the sale.

[00:26:20] Speaker 03:
It did at the time the sale was made have that.

[00:26:24] Speaker 03:
And it retained that jurisdiction that it had.

[00:26:27] Speaker 03:
It retained that jurisdiction in the future.

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
If I could just briefly sum up.

[00:26:33] Speaker 03:
Council, I'm not sure you answered her question, though, because I thought she was asking what was the benefit to the estate, essentially.

[00:26:42] Speaker 03:
They sold the property.

[00:26:44] Speaker 03:
And that's where I was going on this.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
I've discussed this matter.

[00:26:49] Speaker 03:
I've been a bankruptcy lawyer for 45 years.

[00:26:52] Speaker 03:
I've discussed this with numerous trustees and other persons in the system.

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
And I can represent to the court.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
that this language, the retention of jurisdiction in order to determine the nature, extent, and validity of secured claims as part and parcel of an order is not only common, any time you have a sale subject to liens, this provision is in it.

[00:27:17] Speaker 03:
And no buyer will purchase the property without having that.

[00:27:22] Speaker 03:
No buyer will purchase a property subject to all the liens with the understanding that they're going to have to go back to the state court on state law issues to make these determinations.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
It's been put to me in the starkest of terms, and that is, Mr. Wade, Steve, please don't let them make a published decision in this case, or it's going to wreck havoc on the administration of bankruptcy estates.

[00:27:47] Speaker 02:
All right, thank you, counsel.

[00:27:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
The case just argued will be submitted and we stand in recess.

[00:27:54] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:27:56] Speaker ?:
All rise.