forth in their heloc brief is whether or not they set forth ace a private facia case a few points of damages sufficient to not necessarily win the case but to allow the fact finder in this case the judge to weigh the evidence and decide the case very similar standard of review to a summary judgment of the trial court judge stanley found several different times because there was some argument back and forth because it probably wasn't very clear to the parties exactly what his ruling was at the time but the crux of it was that there was jackson various oil production of women on this what is otherwise farm much of this is underground certainly see the pumps above ground pumping when they're pumping but there's more to an oil production system than just the above ground pumping a detailed schematic of what is underground is contained plaintiff's exhibit eighteen which is in the record and the testimony in this case which is on contradicted here is what's in un contradicted evidence is that the defendant mr wetzel did was called tiling on this kiley as i understand it involves taking a post and into approximately four feet underground the end result anything that it's in that way is it so facto destroying to take a tractor it the steel post and drag it through any sort of winds wires you can't help but destroy if nothing else it's at least an inference that when that was destroyed the trial judge following play th case in chief the plaintiff moved for judgment as a matter of law frankly not expecting it to be granted because there was contradictory evidence back and forth some stand but it's what good attorneys always do and following an argument judge stanley denied my motion for directed verdict or verdict as a matter of law and found no private facia evidence of substantial portion i make no claim that we were prejudiced because of the procedure involved in getting there it is the simple fact that ultimately judge stanley found no crime official case on underground water good detail sufficient to actually allow the women to be accessed repaired or replaced underground because it's all laid out there in black and white exactly what was the know so we're not going to he didn't prove a crime that's what he said and if you actually look at his written order and i believe it's paragraph three of his written or your brief states again that there was no prime information case made on these tiles his property mr nelson testified that this would have destroyed all his equipment underground and he couldn't use what was underground certainly judge stanley could disbelieve some of this testimony an analysis is whether or not a party has made a prime aphasia case counsel is going to argue most likely as they did in their brief in their apps the second part of the prong is that you weigh the evidence and to disregard to say i find that the plaintiff has made a prime aphasia case on all these points there is sufficient evidence for me to enter a judgment planes favor all these points but i just believe this or i disbelieve that these points thus you have the same analysis is your best summary judgment of is there sufficient evidence one way or the other to get to the this is whether or not you get to decide the facts all we're saying is there's sufficient evidence for the court to decide whether or not when its claims are true the circuit court found there wasn't sufficient evidence there is what your position while he could have probably ruled the other way based on the advocates he analyze the evidence i believe properly applied the law i think that based on the standard of review that's a nonstarter in this court let's there's any additional questions thank you represented throughout these proceedings the defendant michael dunn was all mr windsor was a farmer with all of the floods we've had in southern illinois and i stay like this mr winton's farming today otherwise he would be case and why i believe the judge stanley was incorrect in ruling the property was not abandon but i want to start by framing the issues as they would play it and i start this in our brief and this was an l n case t ground which the defendant and his wife mr winslow came to own the surface of and then at some point in time the defendant mr windle had damaged certain personal property of nelson development corporation which we are various items that were listed as an electrical distribution system electric lines poles disconnect panels anchors and related equipment and further that there was subsurface pipe and a permanent fixtures and equipment be in line with this  now the plaintive presented its case and basically said the following here's a schematic of underground equipment a visit on certain parcels of real estate within my lease it's buried three to four feet underground and you must to bamiyan and the reason for the statement was this issue of timely and piling which i assume most of you would understand what happens is you dig a trench in certain proximity to one another with in a field and you put corrugated pipe in it to help drain the surface of the ground as water seeps through it drains into these pipes and it drains off the ground none of that evidence was presented in court but i'm indicating to you that's what happens when tom brown the schematic show that out on this property there are certain things that are buried anywhere between three and six would be in different configuration the tiling was done maybe to a depth of four feet according to the evidence which we slide in the record it was not indicated how the timing was performed whether it was diagonally through this field whether it was parallel to the boundaries of the field there was no testimony about the nature of the time it was done was it one cut through the field was it m the record indicated nothing about the tiling or the nature of the tiling that was done other than to say it was done up possibly to a depth the fourth be the schematics in the testimony indicated that the matter reached by the plaintiffs and its counsel that well if you titled this field you must of it are quick and that was their case now the problem with that and the reason why we believe in great substance that judge stanley ruled the way that he did or our motion for judgment of the clones of plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff testified and we've site this within our brief we cite you to the specific re plaintiff testified that he went out to this week every three to four months he fired up this electorate clee powered well he prompted two for circulate chemicals such that three to four months just to keep the equipment operation how do you do that we tiled in two thousand and five and it destroyed all of your electrical lines underground and your flow lines that take the liquids from the pump jack move them underground to your tank back to you kate you can't have it both ways that is why it  his proposed order to the court which came after judge stan lee issued a ruling shall cause for mr mack to produce the order because it had not been produced pursuant to his record she didn't three upon presentation the said there is insufficient evidence to support any adverse ruling on the defendant as it relates to the electrical system except as to one utility pole and then he goes on to tell me about that  from the property a later date witnesses came in and set the tops of these tanks were arrested that there were holes in the signs now mr nelson testified for the plaintiff the corporation young disputed that but we brought in a m intentional relinquishment of the right and proper you can have abandoned property on the oil and gas lease that is an effective lease it's just not being used for average jump and one thing we brought testimony of mr marshall who testified about the tanks in the production facilities having holes in them we testified mr whistle testified about where the hole was there was nothing attached to it it was setting aside the pump jack had been used in years and that the leaks road which was the other element of damage had not been used for years and would just basically grass and a little dirt road and that he had farm bill and they had not been used for years to access this property for any wall and gas operation we cited to record we hope that answers your question so i think the court case and based upon the evidence that was presented see that it was in fact the intent of in the end result this was a very garden variety personal property damage claim case which turned into a defense which we set forth in our pleading of well if you don't want to do anymore you can't be damaged on it which is the a insufficient evidence and if you look at the rulings of judge stanley which we have specifically set forth in our brief the rulings indicate that judge stanley did in fact waybe evidence because we specifically went over believe that judge stanley making his ruling said well maybe it was the winds were cut and maybe a good a well they were cut by timing but i can't speculate to that you have to present evidence which is somehow credible he couldn't have cut the flow lines because you said you were pumping liquids into the tank couldn't happen but we have the record that we have we have the ruling of the court we ask you to affirm stanley's ruling on our two eleven ten motion we ask you to reverse we ask you to find that the property was in fact abandoned and therefore there should have been no damage award in this particular case if you have any questions i would be glad to answer them for the garden variety case from the circuit court but you probably see more oil and gas cases coming  i would like to make one note on the abandonment issues and that is even if the property was abandoned argue and it wouldn't go back to mr mansell the ownership reinvested it back in nelson development assuming it ever left the us even if it could have theoretically been abandoned factually the only possibly been abandoned it was