oh i guess i'm just a little lost on the stand when when he's got a clear statutory right to call the drainage district or get that bread and he said i don't want to do that i want to go cross  they could do that but it wasn't necessary because they had already had the use of the road which is very convenient for the purposes of  a lease or license and if it was a license whether said license was revoked of all the trouble in this case properly granted summary judgment because first there was no license in this situation and second retroactively transform it into a license however a lease is something that allows a person to have an interest in solitary interest in possession of that land and for a ten year period he planted had sole possession of farmland and farm to that ground upon himself to begin trespassing over the land of the defendant at no point in time did the plaintiff ever receive any sort of permission from the defendant aside from that lease to use that program for the purpose of entering into his own party ground and for that reason there has never been a license and that would be why there should never be an inquiry into a fraud exception in terms of the ability of a license to revoke up to be revoked family in terms of the fraud requirements that i know the plaintiff would like this court to consider them as factors but it goes without saying that the cases that talk about these factors call them requirements there are requirements of the fraud exception the first of which as this court has mentioned earlier is that the plaintiff must have spent substantial amounts of money in juiced by the affirmative acts of entering into that license the second of which is there must have been some sort of improvements made by the licensee which partially benefit the license or and this is the operative word there isn't and it is not an alarm that the license or the revoke revocation of that license results in an purchase of that property the people that are before they go across this property to get there no not at all and i don't know but the record is necessarily very clear on that but the plan just testimony during his deposition indicated that prior to him purchasing water combine so he knew so we use the bridge it was not until he decided to consult go out and purchase larger farm equipment that that bridge became essentially unusable for those pacifica pieces of equipment he still uses the bridge and it's not dilapidated he uses it for specific equipment it's just that large equipment that became so i'm assuming that in the eighty's when the equipment might have been a little bit smaller it would have been not an issue at that point in time don't think it meets that because he was farming a number of different leakers including his own farm ground the lease that he had with the defendant and so he had a large amount of farm ground that he was farming and to say that the only reason he bought the  he could get to that little triangle of tract i think would be a stretch in that situation first that first factor isn't just spending substantial money it's spending substantial money in reliance and induced by the pallet he came in and cut off a corner of the licensee's property preventing them access to the core there was no bridge on their property there was no other way of accessing the property whatsoever and the only way to access it was through a road in that case there was no drainage district as well so here in the martin versus he case there was no other remedy or legal remedy for the licensee to pursue in order gain access to their property in this situation you have the drainage district you had the ability to increase the size of the bridge and in that case it wasn't a bridge over a drainage district there was a creek and there was no bridge and it says quick sand creek so they did not have the ability to build the same type of bridge that you would have here by way of i guess nature so out in those ways i think that case is completely distinguishable the other issue in that case is to someone she can't do that because he continues to twigs pass and use that portion of the property over land and it's not like it's a roadway it's income producing i think i'm producing area property even if she wanted to tell it for and the third is that there is no good faith argument for extension of the law or personal of existing law i don't think we have that third factor at all and i would assume that counsel would agree with me so really merican it here is that he never had an old you know you never had anything in writing giving him permission to do what he did he took it upon himself the second part of that is that of the three factors under the proper meaning soon there was a license  this is nothing more than a personal vendetta of a problem against the widow of his brother because she revote permission to use the one this is for the list litigation and the only great oppression in this case is the great