not credible and secondly that everything that happened was designed from the very beginning to keep mr jaimie from exercising the option agreement from the very beginning that mr jaimie was only his corporations were only thing about a one thousand dollars per month for each of the two tenants and it also indicated that none of the tenants were paying additional rent in that email mr norman well i was complaining that he found that one jaimee was only thing a one thousand dollars a month for each of us to tenants and if that was the case he would probably not even break even during the holding period that he was going to hold the property until the option was being exercised mr know him well i recognize that he did not ask or that mr jaimie probably was not going to be able to pay four thousand dollars a month that was called for in the leases so there was a negotiation whereby the two tenants that were partially owned by mr norman doidge by mr jaime question with regard to background information who drafted who was he a trend of the draft of the sales agreement the option agreement i'm sorry just so that e mail recognize that that was not being paid and that mr jaime could probably ill afford paying much more than what he was being required to pay there or to mr jaime mr portlock there was no discussion of payment of additional rent until after the contracts were signed and actually was a day after one thousand eight hundred and ten dollars for the other tenet so this is more than he had anticipated we believe that this indicates a mistake on the part of this or jaimie he did not but that does not coincide with his e mail prior to the closing nor does it nor is it in compliance with the fact that the rent roll in the appraisal indicated that they were paying the additional wrapped mr norman but it was a well educated individual had a master's degree in business and one would believe that he would look at all the documents available he told them because he believed that there was no grounds for it because it had never been paid before and it wasn't part of the negotiations that they pay the two options agreements that no one by submitted to jaimee prior to the entry into the thirteen additional taxes to be paid by th so mr jaime doesn't have that great of an extent of education he had signed a document indicating that he was going to exercise the option   unilateral understanding's not understanding what the contract contract in parties right just like what your client just believed that right just finding the contract provided that for the nine assigned ability  without the approval of the landlord but there was an assignment elisa's the amount of money which mr jaime collected from leases was about two hundred and seventy six thousand dollars most of that money was used to pay the rent to mr norman was i don't know that it can be characterized as pocketing it mr jaime all of a sudden had to pay additional money that it had not known beforehand i don't believe he was represented was represented at the closing he was a representative for a time during the discussion of additional rent but was he represented at the time that they entered into the agreement  original option then the again the original option was represented by an attorney and that original option agreement provided all he had to do was give certain notice and pay fifty thousand dollars by a certain time he was represented by an attorney for that for the subsequent agendum he was not represented by an attorney and this event provided not only for additional rent but also for all these other items including the payment of additional rent in certain other matters so it was not represented then to my knowledge you know and when you say your client don't understand things at the same time she advises these other people not to pay making interpretations of what he believes his individual understanding of the contractual obligations are is that he's telling other people not to do things that he's taking  and keeping it themself correct so he's in a situation that is basically what took place except for the fact that i don't believe you can characterize it that he was pocketing the money or taking it because that money for the most part was used to pay the rent to nomen boy and if they had the additional rent that was not required that should not have been paid so he and a matter of fact in regards to telling his status he didn't have to pay they were all up in arms about this  there's evidence in the record that the tenants were going to go somewhere else mr jaimie knew that he could not get the property back to get a loan for when the time came up in fifteen months if allah tenets were gone there'd be no income stream he would not be able to get a loan so he had an interest in protecting the shopping center not only for himself but also for mr nolan boy because of the tenants left that would hurt mr norman boy so he had a duty to him sel i don't play the record indicates that and my sister jaime representing the tenants the other tenants that he wasn't that the landlord i believe there is testimony to that effect so st of all we believe that the evidence shows that mr miller quite determined from the very beginning that he wasn't going to allow the contract the option to be exercised and that would void the contract rescind everything that happened after that no regard to the judgment damages there's no support in the record for any of these damages the court found that jaimie committed committed misconduct by failing to return security yep just like the other items there's no support in the record that mr jaime had to return the security deposit the options and the leases all require that the security deposits be returned when the tenant vacated or the after they had only paid seventy six thousand dollars because he wanted more ranch so he victor that janet and mr nolan voice asking for the balance of the period of time that that individual is on mr know and why ask for  court noted emphatically that mr juan jaime's explanations as to what occurred and why the agreement should be ignored were were quote were not quite credible and that his attempts to portray himself as a i'm simple minded ed an educated person work or disingenuous all timidly his actions reached the option agreement thereby terminating his right to exercise the option to buy back the strip his actions were fraudulent and quote  a very obvious breaches a fiduciary duty i'm not going to go through all of the facts that mr has already gone through i'll try to point out though that i believe are relevant here to our discussion this involves a strip mall in ohio common friend darrel tom mr newman boy the evidence showed reviewed believed that were given to him by mr jaime's attorney mr court luck and he reviewed the appraisal he noted that the leases were triple net that thereby meaning that the that they would require the payment of cam insurance and real estate taxes through the by the tenants negotiations took place over the course of a month or so  were many different factors in the end no one boy suggested the buyback the reasons for that suggestion he did not want to loan the money he believed that there was a benefit him a business benefit of profit of buying this for eight hundred thousand dollars and the value of this i selling this the property with and the appraisal was one point one and he knew that he could collect rent from a manager who was motivated to have the rent in proper shape because he was scheduled for a buyback nomen why was new to this produce a commercial property and he saw that as an opportunity to learn and he was an out of he was an out of town lamb or so there his notes prior to them being put into an agreement were that that would be to add the two anchor tenant which were still owned which were owned by mr jaime would have additional rent a term additional rent is literally in there as it did in all the leases that were that were given by mr portlock to mr norman the non assigned ability cars were particularly important to those two tenants the reason being is because they were gated they were category but also the facts themselves given the fact that mr and mr high made was the one kind of on the ground more at the time my client being somebody who lives in california and that he had the two new leases for the new tenants with and then dems two those two new leaders as well after the closing almost immediately a dispute regarding the additional rent begins around it was june th after the closing tenant that they did not need to pay the additional rent despite the fact it was clearly in the leases he himself mr and jaime through his two anchor tenant he didn't pay any additional ram and this lasted for a long time it wasn't just a  one day affair he didn't pay in june he didn't pay in july and then really the negotiations of trying to get this moving to try to resolve the issue didn't occur until august by that time there's already three months three months of the additional rent that had been taped my client submitted eviction notices in mid july it did not execute on those eviction notices ultimately what happens is this leads to to modify the current agreements that were closed in may of two thousand and four specifically my client waived his right to vict based on the prior reasons by allowing mr high made and make it clear that a breach of the appellant's leases would also constitute a by a late in of the option agreement so after that was entered in september now unbeknownst and unbeknownst to my client during this negotiation  throughout the whole time mr jaime was actually leasing his is about both of his units to anchor tends to rd parties my client did not know about this until in the middle of the litigation in the trial court and specifically he was renting out the banquet hall to a mr jastrow falsely telling him that he was the owner and collecting three times the rent that he was required to base rent that he was required to pay to mr  under mr norman but now during this litigation it was even more came out that there that the banquet hall had then been subsequently lead to another person named amber duffy for six thousand five hundred dollars compare that to the two thousand die that he would pay me and this was done again by telling mr duffy that he was the owner and on top of that because this was done without you know kind of done without telling my client evicted without any eviction procedure just a self help type of way because that's out the chimey had to do it to keep it secret he and just locked her up and that's what she testified to ultimately again none of this was  known during the time of the you know until the the litigation in february two thousand and fifteen once again disputes arise regarding the additional rent because again that's all mike i knew at the time and there was a disputed amount of what was owed at that point found damages on the breach of contract claim damages on the fraud claim and the and it's additionally due equant what the judge did was he realized that some of these were duplicative in nature and he actually did his own research and by the time the motions to reconsider were filed the judge removed the damages on the breach of contract because they he considered them to be duplicative he still fraudulent leases those leases that that the judge determined were rightfully the rightfully caused by the fraud meaning that the damages calculation there was a deduction of the wrapped up that was actually paid to your client yet yet there was a deduction because that because remember none of those items were actually none of those items were paid to   is part of the other component so the nd component i think what you're referring to is the additional rent owed by the other tenants this was an amount approx i am looking at a look a little over two hundred thousand well it's two hundred thousand because that the two hundred thousand number your honor includes two things one is the are these additional rents and you just discussed which is around thirty six thousand dollars the other amount your honor the amounts that were owed under the under the leases of mr hyman because remember at some point and this is really a cause of this litigation lasted you know many many years so the calculation of one hundred and sixty four thousand four hundred and nine dollars these were shortages of base rent additional additional rent holdover rent and late fees that were the result of just at some point mr hyneman when this litigation started he just stopped paying rent altogether and he remained in the property for over two years i don't i don't quote me on the two years i don't remember exactly the years but many years over the course of the litigation so when you're when you when you mentioned just  of the two hundred thousand dollar number that is a combination of one hundred and sixty four thousand and four mr jaime's business which because of the september a dent the liability  he was dealing strictly with mr no one boy on an individual basis but even even apart from that the option or the september and then makes that so a breach of that of those leases were  also reached of the option agreement which is an agreement that is with juan jaime individually that is how the one hundred million one hundred and sixty four thousand four hundred and twenty nine is added to that seven and wait add to that that thirty six thousand dollars of the additional rents that i mounted that were removed were things that frankly did are probably because our evidence was weak or there was a representation regarding an alligator not working which all we had was mr norman boy's testimony regarding that that was a thirty five thousand dollars number and then there was damages kind of regarding a security system that was destroyed which was which was panned out and we didn't we were not two thousand borrow seven exxon supported by the record as well along with all these other numbers supermarket condo seventy six thousand dollars of that ninety two thousand dollars are charges for the year two thousand and seventeen and six thousand dollars so that's not totally contents manifest with the evidence it's our position that all these claims for damages are against manifest weight of the evidence the additional rents owned by other ten there was charges for hold over rent and other charges holder ranch is a big contention here the court entered an order or early on that said that no lease could become cancelled or terminate so the leases stayed in effect mr nombre why did not really want to accept that so we decided to charge hold our breath grant under the terms of the leaves which technically under the law they were not  holdovers because the court basically stopped everything tending to litigation so there should be no hold over back in regards to the leases i believe that there was no deed auction so in a sense mr  paying ranch or mr jaime's corporation was paying rent for the banquet hall and while he was paying rent entire time up until or c n n there was no deduction for the amount that mr norman boy received from these leases that these individuals never paid so there was about two hundred and seventy six thousand was actually paint to three that these tenants were not no longer in the in the ship center is speculative as to what the damages are there's no support for damages for any of us the additional reds are excuse me th its options agreement clearly provide that those are not to be turned over until those leases are terminated based upon what known boy and vice the court the court found that those were items of misconduct by jaimie by failing to turn over the security there could have been an order requiring a turnover of those monies but there should not have been judgment finding that he was guilty of misconduct and not turning them over when under the terms of the contract they weren't allowed there there's nothing in the contract we would argue that that's not that in accord with the laws of other jurisdictions that that's not the remedy is not what the amount that was collected in any of that and i see my time is up thank you justices thank you we thank both of you for your arguments this morning we will take the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision as quickly as possible the court will stand in brief recess now or a next case