to the city for this parcel that was going to use for the development of a reservoir spring the purchase price was suddenly over eighty eight thousand dollars and the  of the feds inquired about the right to repurchase the property and that led to the exchange of correspondence and the ultimate filing by the city of the quiet title action that the issues before the court today are really the concerns the rights granted by the trial court to the defendants concerning what we have characterized as the right of first refusal that right of first refusal arises from paragraph seven of the purchase agreement which provided that india back like springfield to did not become a reality and the city allotted to dispose of the property the seller who was defining that agreement as for all the gal child the first option to purchase that it would be in that quibble for them to lose the simple title to the property without receiving the push repurchase rights that are set forth in paragraph seven of green and there's nothing say that the upright repurchase is not going to be an indefinite right parties are free to contract in any way they see fit and there's nothing contrary to public policy in this case about limiting the right of repurchase aquittal for the defendants to not rescind the right of repurchase i do not believe that that is a true argument because there are many ways in which this property could have been sold in the right to re purchase divided up or limited temporarily or with respect to who have the right to repurchase and i think the defendants weakness in their argument is that there is again nothing inherently the issue of summary judgment turns to on the procedural posture of the case which the defendants in this case filed an answer denying that the city that the simple title to the property and also follow the counter case they were denying the city had any rights whatsoever yet in the course of the depositions it's martin for example admitted the city owned the property and the issue was really only their right to repurchase under respect to the court's ruling on paragraph seven and ruling that the defendants have an equitable right to enforce that i've just presented my arguments on that issue again there's nothing inherently in repurchased rights but the court not only granted those rights the court expanded those rights beyond what was set forth in the purchase in paragraph seven of the purchase agreement it simply says that if the city lacks to not proceed with the reservoir project and elects to dispose of the property that the galloway's will have the right to purchase the property for eight thousand what sold the property it doesn't it doesn't mean the problem is the absence of heirs and never sees the absence of the run running the land in my view your honor means that the purchase agreement provides that it's a personal right to chooses to not proceed with city with the lake springfield to project and decides its flows of property in that event they have an obligation to allow the defense to purchase the property for eighty thousand dollars if they don't exercise that right the families and they the city sells the property to some third party if the company runs the land that means mining upon subsequent presumably the city sells the property through third party the third party is not purchasing the property for purposes of constructing a reservoir so that  exercise has not built the reservoir and they decide that point that they're no longer going to pursue this that they want to dispose property they then have an obligation to track down all of explaining why it wasn't done and the reason for that is this transaction occurred thirty six thirty seven thirty eight years ago if you could have done signatures from the remainder man why are we speculating on  the fact that my clients did have a right that their father saw to bargain for to be able to repurchase this land in the event that the city  springfield decided that they were not going to pursue the building of lake springfield two and my client marie when she went down to the city offices to seek an affirmation that that was a action because the city found out that they didn't have title to the real estate they indeed are here because they do not have a few simple time it's not clear to be why say they are not asserting adverse possession except in the very remote fact that if becomes possible case i don't know that unless someone challenges his possession has it become hostile well that it does and i think there's i could understand your argument of if the city or earth these people the permission to the city to enter the property and use it then it would not be possible but if they hear of the city nothing consideration was that if they abandoned lake springfield to they were going to give them the opportunity to buy this property back that's that's the part that i have trouble with they have the right to be there they paid originally to be there but how does that adverse possession destroyed this additional consideration they paid consideration and they need to deed and they're saying look you guys we want our cake and we want to eat it too you don't have the right to buy the property back because we change the rules we play by we're not letting people this was this was not a voluntary deal