taking in two thousand and seven this property owner has been saddled with the obligation to pay the real estate taxes though there it is if if the government goes through with the taking which they have and they take possession this case is resolved if the government proceeds with with the physical acquisition of the property we would be eligible for a refund as the property becomes exempt from real estate taxes relating back to the data file to predict the future as to what the pain would be made because there could be a period between the jury determination and payment or whether the government would choose to abandon the acquisition i update the data value to the extent a little issue continues on for more than two years so any case filed after two thousand and seven would not be subject to the court's ruling in this case we're talking about a limited number of in line with the with the curvy decision being that that was made that's the only law that was available to us at the time and i just want to point out the route what we're talking about is not necessarily case law in illinois to make an offer that correlates to the two to the valuation that they received there are no cases that suggest that making an offer less than the appraised value  we had a complicated situation where the by the time the trust in fisheries even received the offer they would certainly have no time to evaluate the offer in their own information as to what the property may or may not have been property at six point two million dollars when the government was making their offer and this contract was provided to the government at the scene and yet the appraisal that the government was utilizing the value was in excess of the number that was written on the fax cover sheet by appraiser daily lives but even under the circumstances they had a written report from appraiser ken pollack that lays out his analysis and what he condemnation the first one is total inability to agree either as to the price or the property to be a court the second one is where the government cannot determine who the owner of the property is the third one is where the government is capable of determin agree to negotiations even come into play because you can't establish inability to grieve under the case law by making an offer conducting negotiations can reach an impasse so this issue that was before the court was official is to whether or not we  satisfy the inability to agree and that's the category with the judge ruled that the certainly a question as to whether or not this defendant was even capable of consenting in light of the fact that they were already involved in litigation over who even owned the property the principal defended was involved in attachments to the deposition that included the negotiation loss the appraisals and all of the duncan it's that went into the negotiations that was before the court and the stipulation for mr wade is you're not going to hear any thing different if you  all the evidence there was the statement now what occurred is the forest preserve district received an appraisal from camp our law that was in one of their practice at the time under the case law was to offer ninety percent of the appraised value of the soft costs which included the survey included the title included the codes of closing costs so they affect offered more than ninety percent of mr potts appraisal they also had a practice of assuring that really received a review principal report that stated an opinion now they also conducted a face to face meeting with the defendant the defendant rejected the principal and here's another fact that was before the court we file a request to admit forcing the defendants to state what their opinion value was on the hundred eighty four again as soon as that particular decision came out of the lake county the forest preserve district consistently is that through all of the years that i was working on their behalf it in it was based upon the case law so it as it relates to this component of good faith when you're dealing with a legislative board that is insurance salesmen and schoolteachers and these people depend upon the attorneys to advise them whether or not they with the law when you get appellate court decision that says a ten day limitation complies with good faith negotiations it's our job to advise them in closed session whether or not they comply we relied upon the direction from the court to assure that we met the standards that the court has  state that you can determine in ability to agree based upon the get in testimony at the jury trial this is long after the traverse has been resolved but what the supreme court did in both of is the difference what were the real numbers and they were they were relatively small believe they'll i believe twenty eight thousand dollar care it was the difference between twelve thousand dollars which was offered by the government and forty thousand dollars that was demanded by the property i don't and you hear from her you you have the evolution of an argument and i think it's an evolution borne from console learning as they went through the process and still the first motion for kirby here and didn't occur until after we had spent months completing and investing thousands of dollars in discovery with the appraisal witnesses in the  experts associated with land playing the engineers all of that testimony was completed and then after we're all set and we got the plane on the runway ready to get off of their jury trial we get a request for a post trial  and the argument to the court is you must undertake this procedure you must use the statutory valuation date we must go to trial with that to eat and then after the fact based on kirby you must have this adjustment judge where you are going to change the value and our argument to the court i think is consistent with what we've said today in that it was their obligation to file a motion to dismiss it was their obligation to follow a speedy trial to me and it jurisprudence of the state of illinois and these multiple moving parts in not just the dates that you use for valuation of the property which has been set by statute but they involve the da incurred in the entire battle was over whether or not the government was going to be compelled to pay interest from benedict in the ultimate ruling was you have to pay interest from the date that you pay the verdict  you take title and property the thing is tax free from the day that you file is shit if you get a jury who don't care if your on appeal for three years in the case they get post judgement interest on them unless you make the deposit if you make  deposit the only thing that happens is it tolls the running of interest and they get whatever earnings the treasury makes in this force investment of the funds on deposit and yes to this issue about possession of the property there's a statute that allows decision is exactly what you've seen in illinois for twenty five years and nothing what you see across the united states and they call on the jurisdiction of the united states to try to find fourth cases that ha kirby whatsoever i think the outgrowth of kirby is nothing it addresses the federal procedures that deal with either a commission or a judge deciding just compensation and then a commission or a judge equitable powers to say you know i'm not going to reward you for the way the record he has the ability to say i think that is a fear case to adjust the date after two years but what it doesn't do is adjust the current situation because kirby didn't under current status of getting a verdict on december tenth of two thousand and seven and if the case is appealed three years later you still have a three year gap between the date  judgment that did then it's different in every component in what they think has occurred here it is an effort to take a procedure that was used in one structure and just assume that you must constitutionally plug it into a completely different framework  it is relates to this case is i don't think there is a fifth amendment fourteenth amendment violation the fifth amendment is applicable to the states through the fourteenth and the way the supreme court has interpreted the fourteenth amendment is to say we're going to give the states some room to create their own framework for the jurisprudence of just compensation and within that framework if they provide an opportunity to be heard in the framework that provides just count in section one with the law which is why don't you haven't seen a decision whether analyzing a valuation case other than the one thousand or three decision that we cited for you from california in  what is a hundred and seventy years i think have been wondering why can't i find the united states supreme court decision that analyzes this multitude of frameworks that are out there in the fifty states and i think the reason is through the fourteenth amendment they're giving states the opportunity to work within their own constitution in their own statutory framework because to do the contrary here if you now take a property owner who's been tax exempt from eleven years and then give them  well first are you doing the commercial property and supposed to vacant property and commercial property in our state they get to keep one percentage of the gravitas and possession of the property until possession is ordered turned over to the government so they have property tax free now for almost eleven years they've had one hundred percent of the revenues from the operation of this property we paid them the full jury verdict in december of two thousand and seven they will get one hundred percent of the money th possession gained control of the property based on the verdict and then home the property wondering what the appellate court's going to do with an appeal that might be filed by the defendant in this case for goodness knows how long the litigation could go on only if we paid a living years of litigation cost which would include all there are reasonable attorney's fees and all the expert witness fees every one of their appraisers every one of their engineers everybody testified on their behalf we have to pay  you do think you could walk away now we could walk away right now from the acquisition of the property we could abandon any position of the property and pay all of the attorney's fees and cost of the opposition for the  forcing possession to be turned over to us but then in a reversal you're you're in a completely different situation ok but if if you do if you had done it in your position if you had taken possession of the property you  of both statutes that the new way does not apply because it says it doesn't and there's nothing in constitutional about that and also there on the merits of the just compensation issues raised by the defen of the four should avoid it moving on their constitutional challenge to the old schedule because they have forfeited under principles of question four words we think it's important for the court not to reach those issues unless it's necessary for the of non frivolous motions to prolong the case but then at the same time say you get the other side in value of that goes up during this delay but we can stick with the original valuation data but doesn't it creates perverse incentives and our position is that those are not no i'm not taking any position with respect to whether there was fault on either side and they were staying out of it as a factual question where we work hard in this case i don't want to wrap my arms around your side discover later that because of ignorance of the record  and as of the date of the tape and our position on them and i think it is it is not so much as a fallback but really the threshold of the principle of constitutional ones is that this was a situation where they were  before the trial that there was this claim didn't increase in value over the long period of this case and they read the kirby case and they said well then we have to follow the current procedure slavish we have the square which is a bench trial where the judge you know took years with the proposed findings and conclusions to reach evaluation of the trial occurred and then finally in there been a substantial to the way the supreme court said of the taking is that unconstitutional prevented them from making that argument at that time in fact in their briefs they pointed to cases in which force of sand in unusual circumstances you can water a deviation from the the statute even passenger instruct where there is a constitutional defendant had stood by and of the two twenty continuances of the case over a four year period i think that amounts to a green continuance every every two months there's no allegation in the in the state doesn't where millions if you have to do why is the procedures that are available to you with the state court level only upon being deprived of just compensation under those procedures just the court look to the to whether it's unconstitutional have we went into the court and said sunday whatever they want to select a judge in two thousand and seven because we think that's probably going to be the day that they will deposit the money and take the property you would have certainly been faced with the argument they knew you didn't exercise the i cannot say that i agree that there cannot be crewed violation under the current statute if it defines it's too late for several years after the jury trial you're going to end up with a situation where there could be a material change in the it's that it's a problem of how the statute is with the language of the statute and what it requires we were put in a position where facing the caribbean violation we need to propose something to the trial court and people need  if the court disagrees with the remedy it's proposed it does not allow us to turn our back on the constitutional deprivation that occurred you can you can recommend