If the Loveladys were willing to litigate the question of the enforceability of their security in this state court action against their broker and the escrow company and escrow officer, why didn't they litigate in the bankruptcy court? Did they have a different lawyer? In the bankruptcy court, they would have taken a position opposite to the position they took here, i.e. they would have argued that their security interest in the leasehold was properly perfected and thus could not be avoided by the trustee. You will more fully understand this point after considering Commentary.Avoidance of liens in bankruptcy, Commentary.Allowed secured claims and Commentary.Consumer Chapter 7. Had they litigated in bankruptcy court, and had the bankruptcy court reached the same conclusion that this state court does, this state court action would have been unnecessary. Does this mean that their bankruptcy lawyer committed malpractice or did the Loveladys simply decide to negotiate in bankruptcy court and litigate later?