[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
And so with that, let's begin.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
Madam Clerk, would you like to call the first case?

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Jean-Rae Van Sant and Delamore Van Sant.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
AJ Kung, counsel for appellants Robert Paul Van Sant and Judeleine Laura Delamore Van Sant.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
Scott B. Oliphant, counsel for Appley Faith Vision Incorporated.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
Kung, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:30] Speaker 05:
Yes, please.

[00:00:31] Speaker 05:
Five minutes.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Please begin.

[00:00:34] Speaker 05:
May it please the court, A.J.

[00:00:36] Speaker 05:
Kung on behalf of the debtors.

[00:00:39] Speaker 05:
Debtors Robert Vansent and Julianne Delamore Vansent,

[00:00:44] Speaker 05:
respectfully ages 71 and 67, are precisely the honest but unfortunate debtors that the bankruptcy court was promulgated to help.

[00:00:54] Speaker 05:
They are not fraudsters, and they certainly did not enter into a contract to rebuild their home, which was destroyed by fire, with the intent of not performing.

[00:01:03] Speaker 05:
Rather, the Vansons are victims here.

[00:01:05] Speaker 05:
They are victims of an unfortunate house fire.

[00:01:09] Speaker 05:
They are victims of an unscrupulous contractor.

[00:01:13] Speaker 05:
They were victims of poor lawyering by their state court counsel.

[00:01:16] Speaker 05:
And most recently, they become victims of a bankruptcy court ruling that was clearly erroneous, unjust, and led to an inappropriate response.

[00:01:26] Speaker 05:
The subject of my appeal is whether or not the $50,000 state court award arbitration for a monetary judgment rendered against the debtors is still secured by a mechanics lien that was filed almost a year before

[00:01:43] Speaker 05:
the debtors filed bankruptcy.

[00:01:45] Speaker 05:
Now, when we filed our objection to the proof of claim, we objected against the secured claim, and we argued that this was just a monetary judgment.

[00:01:54] Speaker 05:
It's just the general unsecured claim, and it's no longer secured by the lien.

[00:01:59] Speaker 05:
It was once secured.

[00:02:00] Speaker 05:
We cited to NRS 108.233, which requires that an action be commenced to enforce the lien within six months.

[00:02:09] Speaker 05:
We then argued that the action that was commenced by the creditor was not an action to enforce the lien, and what we cited the bankruptcy court to was the evidence in the record.

[00:02:20] Speaker 05:
Number one, the complaint only had a claim for relief for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

[00:02:27] Speaker 05:
There was no mechanics lien foreclosure action sought.

[00:02:30] Speaker 05:
Number two, the actions of the creditor were that they proceeded through arbitration.

[00:02:36] Speaker 05:
They did not exempt through the mandatory arbitration program in Nevada.

[00:02:40] Speaker 05:
Nevada arbitration rules three and five specifically exclude from arbitration matters relating to title to real property, which a lien foreclosure action would have.

[00:02:51] Speaker 05:
Creditor also failed to record and publish the notice of list pendants, which is required by statute and it's jurisdictional, Your Honors,

[00:03:00] Speaker 05:
The reason it's required is to provide all parties with notification that something may affect the title to the property and you may lose your interest.

[00:03:09] Speaker 05:
The mortgageor certainly had an interest, but received no notice.

[00:03:13] Speaker 05:
So the actions of the creditor also demonstrate that what they were seeking was not a mechanics lien foreclosure.

[00:03:21] Speaker 05:
And finally, they allowed it to proceed all the way through arbitration.

[00:03:24] Speaker 05:
They received a monetary award for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

[00:03:30] Speaker 05:
for $50,000.

[00:03:32] Speaker 05:
They then confirmed that into a state court judgment, which judgment has become final, is no longer repealable.

[00:03:39] Speaker 05:
after all those timelines had ticked, debtors filed bankruptcy.

[00:03:44] Speaker 05:
Now, when this matter came before hearing in front of our bankruptcy judge, what the bankruptcy judge did, which I believe was an error, was they applied the standard of notice pleading.

[00:03:53] Speaker 05:
And what the bankruptcy judge did was she cited to the prayer for relief in the state court complaint and noted that in the prayer for relief, the creditor had asked as alternate relief

[00:04:05] Speaker 05:
quote, or an order requiring the immediate payment of all money due and owing is determined by this court, or in the alternative, that an order issue providing that the plaintiff may foreclose on the real property to satisfy the amounts due to plaintiff.

[00:04:20] Speaker 05:
Based there on, she reasoned that the Vansons had noticed that the creditor was seeking to foreclose on the lien, and therefore this was an action to commence a foreclosure on the mechanics lien.

[00:04:33] Speaker 05:
What I posit, Your Honor, is that

[00:04:35] Speaker 05:
that is not the same thing.

[00:04:37] Speaker 05:
Whether or not my clients had notice of what the creditor was trying to do is irrelevant.

[00:04:42] Speaker 05:
The notice pleading analysis is an analysis applied when determining whether or not the allegations of a complaint are sufficient.

[00:04:49] Speaker 05:
That was not what was in dispute here.

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
What was in dispute?

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
And hypothetically, if there were two, I think you're suggesting those are independently articulated brands of relief?

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
So if the court, for example, or whoever it was, said, okay, you can have a judgment, good luck collecting it, that would have satisfied a requirement of the complaint, right?

[00:05:12] Speaker 04:
Theoretically?

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
The foreclosure at that point might have been irrelevant, right?

[00:05:17] Speaker 05:
I don't know about irrelevant.

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
I think that... Well, I mean, if the point was that either one of those aspects of relief would have been sufficient... It wasn't and.

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
It was or, right?

[00:05:31] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor, it was absolutely alternative.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
So if you get a judgment, good luck collecting it.

[00:05:38] Speaker 04:
We're not going to tell you how you do it.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
But that discharges the claims over with, and the foreclosure might have become irrelevant at that point, at least in terms of pleading, right?

[00:05:46] Speaker 05:
I agree.

[00:05:47] Speaker 05:
Okay, thanks.

[00:05:48] Speaker 05:
And moreover, because foreclosure was never alleged.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
No, I get that part.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I get that part.

[00:05:54] Speaker 05:
So based there on, we believe or I believe that the bankruptcy court applied the wrong standard and came to the wrong conclusion as a result.

[00:06:02] Speaker 05:
The standard she should have applied was, did the actions taken by the allegedly secured creditor comply with the statutory requirements

[00:06:12] Speaker 05:
that are itemized, legislated, memorialized in the statute of what is required to actually commence a mechanics lien foreclosure action.

[00:06:21] Speaker 05:
And in this case, the facts that are undisputed and the documents that have presented resoundingly confirm that what the creditor did was not commence the lien foreclosure action.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
Now, the primary... So basically you're saying there's two things you need to do.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
One is properly alleged in your complaint, and two is satisfy all the other statutory requirements like recording a loose list pendants to notify other people who might have liens.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
Is that right?

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
It is.

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
With one permutation, I believe not only must it be alleged and the statutory conditions

[00:06:58] Speaker 05:
complied with, I think they actually have to act in conformance with that act, which was the third missing criteria here.

[00:07:06] Speaker 05:
They didn't proceed in arbitration and ask for lien foreclosure.

[00:07:10] Speaker 05:
They never acted as though they were seeking lien foreclosure.

[00:07:15] Speaker 05:
One of the primary oppositions voiced by the creditor was, well, you can't elevate

[00:07:21] Speaker 05:
form over substance, and an inadvertence should not be detrimental or fatal.

[00:07:26] Speaker 05:
But it wasn't just an inadvertence.

[00:07:28] Speaker 05:
If it was just an inadvertence, we would have a different case.

[00:07:32] Speaker 05:
It was they failed to comply, and then they didn't act in conformance with a creditor that is trying to foreclose on a mechanics lead.

[00:07:41] Speaker 05:
So it's not just an inadvertence.

[00:07:42] Speaker 05:
They completed an entire litigation all the way to the end.

[00:07:46] Speaker 05:
and never asked for mechanics lien foreclosure.

[00:07:49] Speaker 05:
And at the end of it, they received a monetary judgment for $50,000.

[00:07:54] Speaker 05:
That, in my opinion, is a dischargeable, unsecured debt, and it's not secured by any lien.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
But let me ask this.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
Had the bankruptcy not occurred, could they then have gone and done what they did, which is file a motion for a foreclosure in the state court in this action?

[00:08:12] Speaker 05:
Under Nevada law, I don't believe they can.

[00:08:14] Speaker 05:
A foreclosure must be brought as a claim for relief, not as a motion.

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
It has to be alleged in the complaint.

[00:08:21] Speaker 05:
The jurisdictional elements must be complied with.

[00:08:24] Speaker 05:
And then the court has to make a decision.

[00:08:25] Speaker 05:
It's not something you can do via a motion.

[00:08:28] Speaker 05:
And in my reply brief, I cited the case law that evidences to the panel that a mechanics lien foreclosure action is a cause of action.

[00:08:39] Speaker 05:
It's not a motion.

[00:08:40] Speaker 05:
It's a cause of action.

[00:08:41] Speaker 05:
I cited a plethora of case law.

[00:08:43] Speaker 05:
I personally litigated, you know, this and its entire procedure.

[00:08:48] Speaker 05:
You file your claim.

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
All the claimants have an ability to come forward and file lean claim statements.

[00:08:54] Speaker 05:
The judge then has to rank all the priority of any conflicting interests.

[00:08:58] Speaker 05:
So it's not something that is just done via emotion.

[00:09:01] Speaker 05:
And I think emotion would violate due process because all involved parties would not have been afforded a notice and opportunity to object.

[00:09:10] Speaker 05:
The final thing that the opposition voices is, I believe, a red herring.

[00:09:14] Speaker 05:
The bulk of Mr. All Defense Brief is dedicated to whether or not a mechanics lien is a valid mechanics lien in bankruptcy.

[00:09:22] Speaker 05:
That has never been disputed.

[00:09:24] Speaker 05:
We agree that a validly perfected mechanics lien is enforceable in bankruptcy.

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
But the situation we have here is different.

[00:09:32] Speaker 05:
There once was a mechanics lien.

[00:09:34] Speaker 05:
It was perhaps perfected, but it has now expired or lapsed due to non-enforcement.

[00:09:40] Speaker 05:
Or alternatively, if what he's saying is he did seek to enforce it, it's been replaced by a state court judgment.

[00:09:47] Speaker 05:
And he cannot now go back to state court, even if the bankruptcy had not been filed, and file a new action asking for lien foreclosure because the doctrines of Ray Judicata and collateral estoppel prevent him from bringing a brand new claim, which was not litigated

[00:10:02] Speaker 05:
during the pendency of the claim, which has now been determined in finality.

[00:10:08] Speaker 05:
With that said, I have nothing further unless your honors have any questions for me.

[00:10:14] Speaker 05:
Questions?

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
You can reserve the balance of your time.

[00:10:18] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
Mr. Oliphant?

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
Scott Oliphant on behalf of Faith Vision.

[00:10:32] Speaker 02:
In contrast to what Ms.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
Kung said, we are in diametric opposition to the contentions Ms.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
Kung has asserted.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
First of all, let us start with what we do agree with so that that is set aside.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
Yes, there was a fire.

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
Yes, the Van Zandt's home was very substantially damaged.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
And yes, they contracted with Faith Vision for repair of their house.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
They agreed to pay Faith Vision $250,000 for these services and had insurance from a carrier called Allstate.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
They received within six to eight weeks of the agreement to rebuild their house

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
more than $300,000 from Allstate pursuant to the claim in checks that were made out both to the Vansants and their mortgagor.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
Well, Faith Vision has received about $166,000 thus far.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
They refused to pay the balance.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
We filed... Mr. Oliphant, why doesn't the state court complaint that you filed

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
that was arbitrated have a separate count for lien foreclosure.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
Because as you will note from reading the cases that Ms.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
Kung has cited, virtually all of them

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
While they are characterized as actions for lean foreclosure, there has to be some underlying reason for which you want to foreclose some violation of law, such as a breach of contract.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
We believe that an action quote for foreclosure is in fact a remedy.

[00:12:29] Speaker 02:
Because if you are paid the money, as your colleague on the panel said, if they get paid the money, we all go home.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but let me correct what I think is a misapprehension about the point of my question.

[00:12:40] Speaker 04:
The point of my question is, if you do not have a separate claim for lien foreclosure in your complaint, which you did not, the judge could have satisfied your request by saying, here's the $50,000 judgment.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
Good luck.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
You're done.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
Go home.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
How does that help you?

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
And then you have a fully unsecured claim.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
Yeah, then you have a fully unsecured claim.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
Good luck.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
Perhaps that's true.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
And that was in the alternative, by the way.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
You didn't ask for both.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
They asked for either, right?

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
your honor, because of the logic which I'm offering, which is if we get paid, fine.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
We don't want that.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
But the point is getting a judgment doesn't get you paid.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
That's the whole point, right?

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
Getting a judgment gets you a judgment.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
And you could have had that and been done with it.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
The court could have done that, right?

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
They could have.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
So where would you have been with your lien then?

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
You would have been nowhere, right?

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Perhaps so.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
That's my only point.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Rule eight, which covers all pleading in Nevada and is similar, if not synonymous with federal pleading, allows for pleading in the alternative.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
It covers all civil actions.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
You state your facts.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
But my point is, if you get one, you may not get the other, right?

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
You didn't ask for both.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
You asked for one or the other.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
I asked for the money or in the alternative.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
a judgment or proceed.

[00:14:05] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
I think we understand the logic.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
And the logic is and the reason we went to arbitration was twofold.

[00:14:11] Speaker 02:
It was a who value the amount of the claim because there was a counterclaim here by the Vansense.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
they got nothing on it in the arbitration.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
Moreover, this was prudent to do this because even if there hadn't been an action for foreclosure or a counterclaim, there were affirmative defenses which could have been brought, such as the lien is invalid or that the value of the lien is improper.

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
It has to be reduced to a sum certain so that you can

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
Why does that need to happen?

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
You're saying it's a two-step process and that needs to happen first.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
I don't find any case law or statutory authority that supports that position.

[00:14:59] Speaker 03:
But you could do it in one action.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
You could do it once.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
You don't have to do it twice.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
But you never pled lien foreclosure.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
You only pled in the prayer for relief an alternative remedy.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
You never asked for the court to determine the amount of the debt and foreclose the lien.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
And you needed to have a lien foreclosure action filed at the time the complaint in state court was filed or the lien would expire by operation of law.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
Correct?

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
I disagree, Your Honor.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
I think the lien supports the debt that is owed that is unquantified and that you quantify the lien, quantify the amount owed and that the arbitration simply instead of going straight to judgment and asking for foreclosure is simply a waiver of the additional amount on the lien.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
The original lien was about $88,000 and the cap on an arbitration is $50,000.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
And so we proceeded in what we thought was a judicious and cautious way.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
And had they paid us, we would not have sought.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
to foreclose the property.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
Even after the judgment was entered, we gave them about a month, I think, or maybe a little bit more and said, okay, now that they're not doing this, we're going to move to satisfy the lien via the requested alternative relief pursuant to rule eight, which is the same in federal court, so that we may go ahead and foreclose.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
The lower court said,

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
Basically, although it did so after the bankruptcy was commenced, it said, yes, you may go ahead.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
Now, we did not attempt to do so because of the automatic stay, but the Nevada court said, sure, you can foreclose to collect the lien.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
That makes sense under Nevada law.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
Moreover, we believe, unlike what has been asserted, that the failure to file a

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
in list pendants or anything else that was done here is subsumed within the judgment under rates judicata.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
But the purpose of the mechanics lien statutes is not only to provide relief to the person with the lien,

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
and the actual borrower, but there's a bunch of other people who can have liens on the property, other possible mechanics lien creditors, the first mortgage or.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
And the point of the statute is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to all claimants.

[00:17:41] Speaker 01:
And you did not do anything to satisfy those requirements.

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
So are you saying that those requirements just don't apply and you get to foreclose anyway?

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
What we say is that they have a right to assert that their claims are potentially still valid.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
But they had no notice and opportunity to be heard in this proceeding.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
Well, actually, I did name other parties in the action, and they asked for dismissals, which we gave them because they said they didn't want to.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
pursue their action.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
We did not know we could not figure out who the mortgage or was because those stock those liens get them.

[00:18:31] Speaker 02:
sold and resold so we couldn't figure out who the creditor was until such time as the bankruptcy was filed.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
But the whole point of this is that the lien statutes do not require absolute compliance, they require substantial compliance.

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
So how is it substantial compliance when you didn't do anything other than file a complaint that said, and maybe I want to foreclose in the prayer?

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
Under the Alaskan case, it says that to assert a deficiency, you have to be an injured party.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
These people had actual notice.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
as opposed to even constructive notice.

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
And the case which I provided this court, I guess about a week ago, specifically says the purpose of a list pendants is to give notice to purchasers and financers who may be engaging in a contract or some sort of transaction regarding the real property.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
That might be a basis for relief, but not for these litigants.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
That is our point.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
And that's where the lower court had it right.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
That's where the state court had it right.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
And this court, we believe, as I pointed out, and I believe... Let me just ask you a question about the state court judgment.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
The state court judgment that you're relying upon was executed by the state court while the automatic stay was in effect, till it was null and void, number one.

[00:20:09] Speaker 03:
Number two, no one attended the hearing to obtain the judgment.

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
You filed a motion, neither you nor the other side, the debtors, appeared and contested anything at that hearing.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
So it was signed by a judge in violation of the automatic stay and is of no force in effect in this case.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
Isn't that true?

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
No, it is not, Your Honor.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
First of all, you have the facts wrong.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
The actual judgment was obtained prior to the bankruptcy.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
No, the $50,000 judgment was.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
I'm talking about the action that allowed the foreclosure to proceed, that once that was in violation of the automatic stay.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
That was an order which was unenforceable pursuant to the automatic stay.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
It was void.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
It's null and void in the Ninth Circuit.

[00:20:55] Speaker 03:
It is of no force and effect.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
But if I may, Your Honor, as I pointed out in my paperwork to the court, we didn't attempt to proceed on the order.

[00:21:07] Speaker 03:
No, but you're relying upon it here to say that it's a race judicata effect with regard to the bankruptcy court, that it has some magical qualities to it because you obtained it.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor, that's not what I'm saying.

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
You're saying that the $50,000 judgment that you obtained from the court before the filing, that that constitutes race to decada on the issue of whether or not you have a foreclosed lien?

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
No, not on whether we have a foreclosed lien, but whether we have the right to proceed to foreclose pursuant to that quantification.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
And the other part that I said is,

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
I said in my paperwork, to be very clear, is not that the order itself permitting foreclosure is valid, but the analysis of the state, of the state court as to the state law is something to which this court should give comity.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
That's what I'm saying.

[00:22:07] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, res judicata, claural stop will depend on a valid final judgment, right?

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
They do, yes.

[00:22:14] Speaker 04:
OK, thank you.

[00:22:14] Speaker 04:
That helps me a lot.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
Thanks a lot.

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
Does the panel have any further questions for me?

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
I don't.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
I don't.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
Nope.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
I would just further add that the cases which opposing counsel has cited for the concept of an action to foreclose, as I read them, most of them, if not all of them, include

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
the underlying concepts or cognitive action or breach of contract, because there has to be some basis for bringing a foreclosure.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
You can't bring a foreclosure in a vacuum.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
There has to be some underlying reason to do so.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
And that is what we did.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
And we view the foreclosure as a remedy and the alternative to the

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
to a valid quantification of what's owed so that that can be addressed during the foreclosure.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much for your argument.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:23:32] Speaker 05:
Kung?

[00:23:34] Speaker 05:
Your Honors, I have nothing further but to just confirm and reiterate that yes, the order authorizing foreclosure was void ab initio, it was

[00:23:43] Speaker 05:
entered while the automatic stay was in effect, and it was pursuant to a motion that was neither opposed nor argued by my clients.

[00:23:52] Speaker 05:
Other than that, I have nothing further unless Your Honors have any questions for me.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
Questions?

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
Nope.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
Thank you both very much.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
This matter will be submitted, and we'll try to get a decision out promptly.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
Thank you.