Please answer the given financial question based on the context.
Context: american tower corporation and subsidiaries notes to consolidated financial statements mexico litigation 2014one of the company 2019s subsidiaries , spectrasite communications , inc . ( 201csci 201d ) , is involved in a lawsuit brought in mexico against a former mexican subsidiary of sci ( the subsidiary of sci was sold in 2002 , prior to the company 2019s merger with sci 2019s parent in 2005 ) . the lawsuit concerns a terminated tower construction contract and related agreements with a wireless carrier in mexico . the primary issue for the company is whether sci itself can be found liable to the mexican carrier . the trial and lower appellate courts initially found that sci had no such liability in part because mexican courts do not have the necessary jurisdiction over sci . following several decisions by mexican appellate courts , including the supreme court of mexico , and related appeals by both parties , an intermediate appellate court issued a new decision that would , if enforceable , reimpose liability on sci in september 2010 . in its decision , the intermediate appellate court identified potential damages of approximately $ 6.7 million , and on october 14 , 2010 , the company filed a new constitutional appeal to again dispute the decision . as a result , at this stage of the proceeding , the company is unable to determine whether the liability imposed on sci by the september 2010 decision will survive or to estimate its share , if any , of that potential liability if the decision survives the pending appeal . xcel litigation 2014on june 3 , 2010 , horse-shoe capital ( 201chorse-shoe 201d ) , a company formed under the laws of the republic of mauritius , filed a complaint in the supreme court of the state of new york , new york county , with respect to horse-shoe 2019s sale of xcel to american tower mauritius ( 201catmauritius 201d ) , the company 2019s wholly-owned subsidiary formed under the laws of the republic of mauritius . the complaint names atmauritius , ati and the company as defendants , and the dispute concerns the timing and amount of distributions to be made by atmauritius to horse-shoe from a $ 7.5 million holdback escrow account and a $ 15.7 million tax escrow account , each established by the transaction agreements at closing . the complaint seeks release of the entire holdback escrow account , plus an additional $ 2.8 million , as well as the release of approximately $ 12.0 million of the tax escrow account . the complaint also seeks punitive damages in excess of $ 69.0 million . the company filed an answer to the complaint in august 2010 , disputing both the amounts alleged to be owed under the escrow agreements as well as the timing of the escrow distributions . the company also asserted in its answer that the demand for punitive damages is meritless . the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the release of the tax escrow account and in january 2011 the court granted the company 2019s motion for summary judgment , finding no obligation for the company to release the disputed portion of the tax escrow until 2013 . other claims are pending . the company is vigorously defending the lawsuit . lease obligations 2014the company leases certain land , office and tower space under operating leases that expire over various terms . many of the leases contain renewal options with specified increases in lease payments upon exercise of the renewal option . escalation clauses present in operating leases , excluding those tied to cpi or other inflation-based indices , are recognized on a straight-line basis over the non-cancellable term of the lease . future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable operating leases include payments for certain renewal periods at the company 2019s option because failure to renew could result in a loss of the applicable tower site and related revenues from tenant leases , thereby making it reasonably assured that the company will renew the lease . such payments in effect at december 31 , 2010 are as follows ( in thousands ) : year ending december 31 .
|2011|$ 257971|
|2012|254575|
|2013|251268|
|2014|246392|
|2015|238035|
|thereafter|2584332|
|total|$ 3832573|
.
Question: what was the percent of the total future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable that was due in 2015


Answer: The answer is:0.06211