g i think it's a sensual to understand the background of the situation and the timing that goes into it kind of a store here we've got a tract of land that is originally purchased improvements but it doesn't specify what are the public improvements that they did not complete all they did next to please there was a road was put in it was not finished so for example there will be current gutter but then you'd have the roads get worse and worse as these years go on and we're ten years into this since the kimball hill bankruptcy in this case so the residents were upset about that problem the landscaping the single life on earth in the end the whole purpose of the initiation agreement to be is to be in to the position you wish the developers have to do things that would protect the community at large and we were in the real estate move so they thought this is good enough for us they never talk to the village now it happens with t r g they did things in the box they bought a property at the time th hill is going bankrupt colby's going bankrupt other major developers are going bankrupt they're buying things on the cheap do they come to the village with the initiation agreement no what they do is they say we're buying something cheap we are we're going to take our risk we took this risk in other cases that this court has dealt with and we're going to take our chances and it was just one other thing as shelf elation as a business calculation this is consistent with their business model g and i'm going to build my own house well and i still going to be accepted here yes because it serves the it reads the purchaser who are of course in the same for residential occupation and that applies to empty lots as whoa that's consistent with the intent of the indexation agreement of the other provisions in the public policy of illinois saying just like we didn't in the elgin case the by the b because of the success or liability provisions the william ryan homes acquired properties subject cash when these problems were born it we're not talking about a situation where none coolants have been done i'm going to estimate and i've been dealing with this for ten years over sixty percent if not more of the coons head to install and would have not been installed were perves and the final lift on the streets i'm not sure if you're familiar with that but asphalt character indicated that this is appears to be the modus operandi of these two companies well i was having read my gallery and elgin and now your case i'm a little confused which which happened where but annexation agreement before they buy that's a critical thing to understand that when developers are purchasing a property that has been an action the way that these properties had they are lots regardless of residential plans or against purchasers of substantially less than the entire property as that term is defined by the execution agreement they need to be an unambiguous model of clarity can reasonably be interviewed more than one way and that's a given credit to your feels understanding of it your feels elaborate effort to explain its understanding as applying to only certain purchasers of empty  would that paragraph and those words that i left out because i want to ask another question that now addressing your issue why would i mind going into debt some division be required to do all of the things that had not been done had not been done by kimball prior to the bankruptcy i'm not i'm not sure that i follow your  with would not be required to know why would i an individual purchaser of one of the lots that kimball had sole to me and i built my house why would i be responsible to complete the entire subdivision an empty lot for residential purposes then you would not be obligated and that i think there's any dispute that dead would be the case i think a better question and one of this gets worse tailored to the best of his case is what if you were purchasing a single item for the purpose of developing it and offer residential obligations or occupation and in in those circumstances under the your feeble interpretation of this language you would in fact as a purchaser of an empty zoned for residential were they not yes they were well then how can i develop it in something other than the residential property you can rez if you develop it for something other than your own residential property and i think the idea that the issues here is that supposed to hypotheticals t o g in we in my homes are both developers correct so that's uncontested correct that's correct and isn't it a fact question as to what percentage of the improvements should be subdivision and that's even though you know that we know that some of those public improvements have already been completed this adeleke to settle with the city of goldfield for a certain amount of money i think was eight hundred thousand or something like that correct best correct properties that are tended or purchased by one developer to get split off the never told time that's not unusual at all not at all right but but it is it's every successive developers who purchased a section to develop would be different once we're referring to what we're arguing about is it worth bill's understanding stated understanding that the allegations to complete the public improvements to the entirety of the celebration have passed had suggested it might place away or just looking at doyle generally speaking since the proposition that the successor owner of a single lot of home or resident it's different from an owner developer there's two different types of orders law for his or her own residential occupation is like a person only a single lot or as a developer may be purchasing the entire tract but in a case like this one where the developers have purchased less than the entire tract and considerably less than the entire tract i might add the same rationale for not applying the entirety of the original owner's offer geishas to those purchasers applies just as well regardless of whether the person has purchased a ly the facts the timeline of this case as it pertains to women right holmes is extremely bad for the appellants if you look at this we intend to answer justice sessions question as far as the single law the annexation agreement discusses a lot of responsibilities for the owners of the developers after the david and so we're talking about here we're focusing solely on the overall public improvements to that to you know not specific to a particular unit right however you could buy a single lot and have to deal with the improvements for your individual lot and so there would be a situation in which a single black owner would have responsibilities under the annexation agreements if those improvements as to that lot were to be difficult agreed upon by the purchase to occur right and so in our case we entered into this last purchase agreement with kimball hill of which we were not required by any individual lot until those individual improvements were done and in this case they were paid william ryan holmes to finish all of the individual who plans related to each one you paid william ryan  and so when we acquired our lots in twelve different transactions over the course of time kimball hill was still performing under the heading station agreement all of the public improvements were still being performed by the time kimball hill file bankruptcy we had already acquired each of our individual lots in the subdivision and almost all of them had already been sold to third parties so when we acquired our interest in the public improvements related to that individual a lot were already done the last purchase agreement only required william bryan holmes to do certain limited things a couple of points what a lot of purchase agreements you racist point these only came about because a lot purchase agreement so we used an affidavit to lay the foundation for the left purchase agreement so it was properly before the court because it was exactly the mechanism for how this deitz came about to sing you in your brief th sell individual lots to a developer and yet they are without also passing on that responsibility they're basically viewing away my home as a guarantor you know interior fifty years you cases they acquired all the interest that was remaining for those lost to have the improvements on them and so all we were going to do was build the home we were taking on the responsibility and by they said by the time that the default happened here which was by the bankruptcy we had very little interest left in the subdivision  purchaser agrees other is this agreement the intersection agreement also includes the same provision there's nothing that says that a developer who's performing under an exception agreement can sell individual asked to another developer and retain the development or this is what we're doing no because we never heard anything because we knew we were in order for us to sell these lots the in title insurance all these other things we had to make sure that the individual lots had the sidewalk and had the a landscaping in front of it responsibilities were retained by william brought by kimball hill throughout the entire process so why they said it would take is a federal law when they sell to another developer that successor developer becomes responsible break but then again in this particular case they says unless it's otherwise contract kept by the developer i mean there's a pretty even the exception provides that the developer can retain those responsibilities we don't automatically come in and have as it pertains to when right holmes who bought just lots they didn't buy the rights and the responsibilities or the development as a whole retire them all well they're still performing again that's another prickle fact from a timing perspective is until the default everything was going along the way and so it was their using their clearing way of writing homes guaranteed the rest of the entire development somehow and we don't know when that triggered was so what i'm saying here though is i agree that a person who purchases a d life can be responsible for the public improvements as to their view of it and so there is the exception does it the way that i'm reading it or that i'm suggesting that a court read it isn't making it completely it isn't looking for some absurd result what i'm saying here is if i buy an empty lot and i think then selling it to my cousin ok i think if that law has no improvements on it the developer hasn't done the stew hasn't done all that i have that responsibility under the agreement here or there then taking him to the next step of saying if you see if you buy more than one all the sudden you're responsible for all and that's not what that exception says and that's not what the intent of any of these agreements would be so counsel for both your field fidelity said that they're still needed to be they have third layer of the road on the properties that you purchase you are responsible under the annexation really you should not really be responsible for the whole idea allegation that was somehow we took our response but our whole with it's not a factual question is actually just looking at the language of the agreements between the parties to actually really render that decision so if those exhibits contradict the allegations which as we said the court didn't have to take those allegations as true and find a question that they could interpret those agreements and find the way they did stuff that's outside the confines of the complaint and i think just as you focus that there are a whole bunch of fair issues here that need to be discovered and decided upon by fighter fred and then it's our position that that should happen when we were denied that opportunity by the fact that this case was dismissed and so what is important is that it is just as you mentioned you can't residential purchasers of these homes so who is supposed to provide even in response for your local green to ok let's get this land will bring it it will make it part of our village you have to do certain things with order to make that work are while we're going to get these additional people that are now homebuyers are going to be part of our town we need you to provide certain things the sewer the streets the parks the sidewalks the detenti of the developer owner developer should it not be should not be limited to the percentage of the overall property i think that this effectual issue that has to be determined rather core but you would agree with you that