morning ladies and gentlemen there is one matter before the court this morning although we don't use the time clock we do adhere to the time constraints please remember that this did the circuit judge exercised his discretion in this case in granting the motion to dismiss indeed you are in what fashion did he himself it seems to me that the finding of the court that the landlord was not entitle to collect let's let's stop right there when he's not entitled to collect is that an exercise of discretion or is he saying as the manner of law the landlord is not entitled to collect because whatever he was entitled to was extinguished upon the sale of the property that is the exact issue are they always a lot use of discretion or is it a question  mixing the two it's either a question of law that the judge ruled or he said you know i could go either way here but i'm going to exercise my discretion and go this way i'm not sure which but which of the two y motion to dismiss under section two six nineteen the law has always said that that's what the no hope standard of young yes the way we decide cases and that's the way the am regional health services which is the defendant's predecessor in the case owning and operating st francis hospital and health care entered into a lease now section three point zero two of as to whether you have standing to sue is in bed with this is all about that is just a one issue standing to sue sure to court yet you did not and your argument should be why you have  once upon the sale of the land the rant passes down with with the land and this is not the case here here we are referring to and already  crude brand should be seen as not huge chert but already accrued mature obligation on the part of the town and to repay those amounts to to the landlord let me ask you did the year the case that no they did not all of these cases really refer to the fact that their rant future rent payments has done with the latter which is well settled illinois law but this is not the case what is your best case answer i think it's a it's a question of fact i here's here's one answer that you say you can pay me and let me fight with the other person and will result but you always someone you might as well pay me indeed a good question that is right in fact we did file the lawsuit right and the motion to dismiss was simply granted for lack of standing which doesn't necessarily apply in this case that is exactly why we're here you are further than that it's almost like a it's like almost like a personal property it's almost like a loan because that money was taken out of plaintiff's last landlord spark it expanded and h b c improvements and landlord relied upon defendants corporation also support indicating that the early accrued round does not pass down with the land and landlord is entitle to collect for those amounts and therefore does have standing and a motion to this matter to the new buyers the contract for sale and the deed that included all the excess and pros corporate management actually said that you don't need a for sale the real real estate as a sort of the shield against the obligation that your client had to pay the landlord who are h whatever that is why should why should your try the case and then the judge issues a ruling as to whether or not that obligation continued after the v the sale of the property but it's not a question of standing it's not a question of you lose out right it's a question isn't case of approach you're correct that's like ok you know it's a dog but it isn't it's still a cat but there's nothing in the least itself that indicates that these payments were alone were some already cru properly dismissed its motion for reconsideration because it claimed in its motion for reconsideration that it should the court should have found that it had standing based on this case law that says well sell the property you still are entitle present i grieve with you that the most for reconsideration should be reviewed as are under the abuse of discretion standard but what about the judge's original decision and did he really say that it's a matter response the motion to dismiss for lack of standing was that played at standing to sue because this was a law but if you look at the record and this court can affirm based on any reason that's there in the record there's nothing in the least however that based on the notice of appeal this court only has jurisdiction over the order of the motion for separation but if you look at the order on the motion to dismiss it for lack of agrees with that and the only case that any of the party side that actually address standing itself of corporate management also says that and then going to that prior time period there are a couple of reasons why there is no right to collect anything before that too so so who have the right to collect did anyone have a right to quote no it's our position that the  all we would do with the remainder for a trial and those arguments you've just made sounds like a good argument for a verdict of no liability but i'm not elephant it's still a pencil it says what it says you can't say it something else and get away with it that's not the way we do business  landlord tenant police and that's a contract and and and contracts are reviewed by the circuit court in the review and then once he interprets it then is that it is it was not to this aren't we i believe that it was clearly highlighted and stressed that the question here is one of standing to discuss any matters of language of the contract it would be by premature