scary certain that all of you have carefully read the briefs that have been filed here and i will try to be very succinct in my remarks first of all i should also tell you counsel then i am stifling the  evidence that it was ultimately secured by a design that mr socially agreed he himself had created and he also stated that everything on his report was true yet he shows and on his report a structure that is three feet within his power but we know darn well it was it extended over nine inches with the overhang into the prop now the question that i would have is  what is the relevance of any of the information that you've so far presented to us assuming that it's made of wood in compliance with the city code are made without compliance with city owed how does that impact on your private right because not the so mean that because it was a legal structure first of all and in a legal structure can act under the circumstances of this case the city would never approve such a structure yet they approved it based upon would you have a private read objection if that structure were placed soley within the op boundaries of your that happened i would say about a year and a half ago house lot tell you what i would like from you if you can help me out for us my my colleagues on the bench would also agree with that  tell us where i'm on the various alternative recourses that are offered starting with monetary damages where trespass where would be a continuing trespass where the time limitation would be from the first day with no up with no up increment based on any additional major assistance to me well judge i can and if i may proceed to do so first of all it's we are in the court of chancery start with the beginning you know mr hope that always we have to follow that we have to consider what was it we when it started and you have to consider that it is a twenty year statute of limitations because this is a continuing that would meet the other criteria for halfords is that let's go to that first of all there are six requirements for at first position open in the forest which is was continuous which was exclusive which is was an under claim were close friends and he told her the story of how he had a foot of property from him from the next door neighbor and then he proceeded to tell her you know i did the same here and he acknowledged that this was he for the first time said this is illegal but it's grandfather he can i can get away with it i wish she checked the records of the city she saw him or want to hold the everything that came out how much of a lapsed from that conversation before concessions that stan would make in that your client would take the property as he found first of all he wasn't the one who sold week he was the person so qwest was not a state stan was never identified i think that the state and was whereabouts and you absolutely cannot create an easement or a license by parole and i have cited cases in that regard i'm sure you know with infinitely better tonight so here is a situation where the  this was the proof he everyone is required follow the law he could have under these circumstances at least the pay that is good but how can you obtain an easement for something that is pitifully illegal if you just recall one of the facts in this case which i believe is very startling the miss says i started to lay the foundation at the kind when before i ever had a perm the city came along and they stopped it and when they stopped them they said hey you can't do this you have to have a permit so he presents a plan which was absolutely false the it we know that the world ghost starts at the party line he presents a plane for them where he is three feet over i think his again completely misstates the proper end and the position of the property and the position of the structure which he does which is illegal and it exists until this day and everyone has a right to be secure in the law that  dead it's going to be follow you cannot create an illegal structure deliberately which was done here because he knew where it was he admitted when he was a peach at the trial from his own deposition that he bound if i had to follow it it says that once you make the initial fruition of the land that's the date that the he statute of limitations starts to run it's not a continuing violation every day and there are other violations here that that to the initial construction was all done completed long before she came on the property as she wanted to previous to her so with regard to that sheet she can see that the overhang is there it's that's the length of the piece of paper it's back at the garage level prove any damages which i don't think she would ever be able to do because presumably if you buy the property if it was to diminish with free will prove it was diminished in any way that that's why she bought it she must have had the benefit of a bargain she sees it there she knows what she's doing my guess i would say never and that agree with you on that point but later in the proceedings i was able to get the same evidence in that her state of mind but substantively the door that opened the questions on that from plate of scots are lit up that allowed me to put in the evidence that he had received permission  someone bought without knowledge of that they did argue that in my written pleadings it didn't come up at the trial i don't believe the judge ever specifically ruled on that argument it isn't my pleading moments reading between lines in the breeze of certain kinds of treatment now we know that this overhanging was created by levy owner who was a policeman who brig atari then he couldn't do that now but reading between the lines one would certainly want to speculate whether that's a good  i believe there's evidence testimony from my client that his stance of he said back injuries over the earth to preclude him from doing any more physical labor i believe it's in the record but certainly not because well i'm not  that you are by any means and i'm just i think it was in the record defense i believe that's part of i'm prepared and tend to want to do decide this case and we do consider it not to consider it that f the trad judge fashion what he thought was the proper equitable remedy still it is a court of equity he's supposed to have discretion to fashion an equitable remedy and he supposes take into consideration all of the circumstances which certainly include that this is a small small shows name escapes me but for the the point that it's to walk up and down any block here to see people have their satellite dishes sticking out or somebody's property as is or a little bit over you know we can't really suit each other every time we get mad at her neighbors over things like nine he says he makes a finding that the defendant does not have any adverse interest in the point of slam when he's asked for clarification and the which ultimately least is appealing to seventeen and he declines to remove the encouragement and he says that it must remain and it can only be extended or it cannot be extended but can only be touched for the purposes of repairing it or he may keep the good in the state of repair as from death we come with the decision that he has given her a perpetual beat it was not just that the the thing existed but there was a continuous run off of water from the defendant's property he didn't even read it we're even in a better position than myers he didn't do anything it was a natural one we don't know do  doing his business up there and the excrement was falling down on to the other property and she says it's still falling down the ice the the and the water falling down creating the on the actual condition continues just like the situation in m and another point that are that we have here is it is incredible to believe that this defendant this asking for a court to sanction a false to sign the libera of certainly was not one we could go to for a legal opinion she was a simple nice lady white i don't think completely understood this day understands all that has happened here but she has a problem that she's and then chances are you would have done it six years ago or seven years ago in this cause of action a true day it's it's astonishing to me that something we don't like to water dripping from the edge of the affair garage roof termed it depends which testimony you wish to believe the court never addressed it in its decision there was no no no she said it was still going on he said it stop and it certainly can turn right  no i just say that that precedent it rewards an act of of complete dishonesty to the city of chicago by giving a perpetual easement it is contradictory by its own terms where in one situation the defendant the s there is nothing else move on