that it was involved in this case but you know if i'd like to let me just address that for one moment it is interesting that you point them out because i think it is a fact that really old movie weighs in favor of some type of relief for the score in favor of star creations and let me tell you why at the time this case was filed it's in the records at the time the case was filed this plaintiffs have already sees a security rent or damages for damage physical damage to the property so it's a very why compassing provision in the least the security deposit can be used for any reason but it has once taken it has to be created so keep in mind  and repair replacing the property to its original but something apparently happened that it wasn't and i assume it had a lot to do with the money that was old for rent defendant star creations the only thing ever to be trying here was going to be passed to rant which is why we file the whole shebang move in a trial when all of these other damage claims came up if they're not re pan out points out of the second district case and milton also chimes to notice a newer case that reese kind of we didn't clear in our original brief because of the timing i think of when it came down in june of two thousand and eighteen of this this there's personal jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction ok the court has jurisdiction or it does not and if it does not have jurisdiction that it can't hear a claim court of claims risk of having to pay where they shouldn't have to be limited issue that was raised by star creations was simply the one that had you we have our security deposit appliance or rent seeking damages on the lease and attorney's fees for the lease based upon the failure to put the property back into the position it was at the start of the term  proceeding it's designed to be a summary perceiving and when you expand then you take away certain rights and remedies of certain defendants but in between there just wasn't the request about repairs that had been made to the property to return it to its original state there wasn't a pretty active complaint for lost profits due defendant tenet said you weren't going to be on the whole for the army amortized expenses because you're in breach of this lease i want you to dispossess yourself from the city and i want you to  hundred that was on apply and on the affirmative defenses had been wanting to file a claim they should have filed it in the form of a complaint but what this trial court did was oh my this particular plaintiff to receive money in a prayer for relief and a claim for damages this is the first time that i can remember practicing law here in affirmative defense resulted in no money judgment it can be an offset right but how that amount fifty one fifty two thousand dollars times seven then there's still more money that's due and owing to the security deposit might be applied if certainly true but whatever it was that thousand why can't the landlord say well we're prefer him or we're choosing to use it for damages that have occurred in our opinion to the property and therefore that was their response did you ever say you can't do that in the writing or in an oral motion so when you think to answer the latter part of your question going on but what was the actual amount of the rent pursuant to the lease that was entered what was the amount of soul i apologize i can tell you i can't be one hundred percent precise that was supposed to be paid under the fees which when you add in taxes other insurance and the actual friends itself operating expenses people roughly in the neighborhood of you know prevailed in some way on its counter claim or its claim for unpaid rent in the form of eighty nine thousand dollars star operations prevailed on it's our claim of one hundred thousand dollars the affirmative defenses