arse this is a breach undisputed and the stipulation of facts that we entered into lays out most of the pertinent facts relating to that stipulation contains a lot of clothing there are separate excavated all these materials and i think that's what's lost in all of these arguments that concentrate on little portions of these contracts and that is the purpose of these contracts and before i get to that i have to point your claim specific contract deal with this private contract they don't have the right to rely on our contract so let's take a look at what their contract settles and this explains why unjust enrichm paragraph then they completely misconstrue that paragraph ten contains language protecting stark's rights it always happens it was there to protect stark and star anybody has any third party beneficiary rights or any rights under a contract or party it's mr sharon it's not mr sharp and what happened in this case and i think it's very important that we we look at this language that they rely upon the language in paragraph ten does start out by saying this isn't in the short lease that the property owners warrant that they have good personal mar glassy has also been for that stark excavation will be allowed while must remove its equipment and materials belonging to start from the premises after two thousand january one two thousand and four except for stark excavation lesser shall this is a political sole and exclusive possession of the lease premises to last season january one two thousand and four so what does that say it says star will be allowed while months to remove its equipment and materials belong to start from the machinery equipment and other improvements and the south and remove all sand and gravel stockpiled on the subject premises on which world these have been previously paid now what mr shon has done in this case is taken that language upon which have a right for one year after during during a period of one year from and after the terminations of this lease there's no question that the lease terminated on december thirty one of two thousand and three so stark had the right for a one year period to remove its stockpiles and equipment and whatnot not a dispute there rob sure if you have to pay for it or you do that and they do that by relying on language in this agreement and settlement negotiations it went back and forth between star and the property owners where the property owners took the position hey wait a minute we own this now because you couldn't pay it by the end of the year back no mystery shots of the women we have a contract with probably and they interpret that contract in a way that i don't think is proper because they're relying on our contract but they're saying well and in fact i mean what happened in this case is the exact opposite of what you heard this whole case started because they took materials from one of starks stockpiles and used for the road race and that prompted this original lawsuit in two thousand sex when we file the complaint said you all this for that and then they count to claim we got our summary judgment and then later two years later they were allowed to amend despite judge claim or issue that ever arose deserving no no he wrote it he removed all of his equipment and that's the very next line in the paragraph that i read to you which says any equipment or material not removed during said one year period or and i mean that's what what i find really interesting about this case i mean the i mean let's just let's just look at the agreements we're talking the paragraph that i just read to you which is the sole basis under their well no all i'm saying is that that's the basis for their claim and when you look at that that whole language it doesn't allow them to in any way dictate how starkest negotiate is going to  with the property owners over disputes over you already own contractual relationship with sherm none whatsoever none whatsoever and that's what's so puzzling about this case the entire case is based on that we're lying that's the other thing they're responding the case law regardless of how these things were ultimately paid for we have every right to tell you these cases are open brief their response to it every right to negotiate and even renegotiate that prosper something like that but the fact the matter is there when you look at those the correspondence going back and forth they were negotiating about several things and they didn't even know what the amounts were until january twentieth one farnsworth group  there's a there's a specific here i've got close to where you're still yeah i mean there's a letter dated may tenth of two thousand and four were to mr bach where mr bush on recognizes that mr len said this agreement was signed on april twenty ninth i mean it was never any intent to hide that and we have made it i mean there was never any dispute about that but that doesn't create a cause of action for for unjust enrichment i mean if anything that's an issue that should have been taken up but to answer i want to answer your question because i know you want to ask a question but may answer his question first because you asked how the judge how did judge orders come up then and i think what happened was when you look at the convince the judge that somehow or another this backdating issue was relevant to unjust enrichment when unjust enrichment never should have been an issue in the case and that's the only thing that i can think of i mean he has all of and to me i don't see anything wrong with what's with what mr starr did here you negotiate it an issue with the property owners you reach a settlement they were moved all the materials and those became an issue until years after we got summary judgment and after we filed a complaint because they literally took our material to use in their own for their own base and i'm not aware of any contract law that would support that kind property owners are happy stark is happy the materials are been moved to his property or whatever and start realizes some of it's gone but he  popular they pursue that we laid out and are very very detail they specifically allege you should have sold these materials to mr stark because you agreed in your separate lease with us that we would have exclusive access to and addressing a couple fundamental issues here and it goes to does it make a difference when backdated doc if it makes no difference then why do we care want to document is dated why would you go back to your beat is irrelevant to the litigation because under the spark lease they were only entitle to one year to remove the material and only if they own the material at the expiration of the day where his it says in a in the  property at any time and our sole discretion and what one of the problems with them ok specifically exclude the previous operators equipment or stockpiles own by the previous owner but that's an issue between the owners of the property and some are not an issue between you and start it your honor i would respectfully disagree because at some point when you start looking at the three lease agreements and let's not mistake this is how the court started they came and it was it was stark who came in and said we want the court to interpret the sharp police in order to grant us our rights they had one year to remove any material that they we need to go she added your lease did you know whether or not mr starr had paid the royalties on the stockpile of them so we did you know we did not know yes or no but what we were told and which is what is in the trump crap david is that they might own them and if they did on them they would have one year to remove them and we're ok with that well who own them if mr stock no we believe with that then we come back to who has exclusive possession of the property you do that's great separate the property owners know we have exclusive possession to the property owners as well so they have to ask you permission to let mr starke remove materials that they have already decided that he has the right to remove within a twelve month period they disclose back to ted be totally exclusive actually i would disagree your honor it can't  he removed them then he can't which is why they backdated the dock if you don't know whether he's paid the royalties or not what would you do to prevent him from moving that we we would do what we did do we told him to cease and desist one because we had exclusive possession of the property they would have to prove they own the materials and they would have to prove they owned them as of december thirty first two thousand and three the property owner on the on the stock let's just assume that for a moment could they sell the stockpiles and give the right to a third party to come in on the property and remove those stockpiles mean they are specifically excluded from the terms of the early here's because that i would respect listen they are taking it out of context the rest of the agreement says he will have one year to remove the material and equipment on but let's restrictions we have to pay the elders and if we don't pay the royalties we don't know an issue between you and property that's not you and start problem unless we enter into a contractual arrangement that gives us exclusive possession of the property except this material for a year as long to see pay royalties but that's not exactly correct and this is where it goes a stipulation of fact in our joint stipulation of fact the parties agreed that of an offer that has not yet been completed and the property owner says i recognize that we have to complete is all but if the august completed satisfactorily and the royalties are pa d what the but what does that have to do with you what you did not negotiate your lease based upon the hope for the hope that you would have that property because i take it one step further in in the in the record the common record stark was given notice before the expiration of the start at least that if he didn't pay the roll to us by the end of the lease he wouldn't own question is you know what part of it is it the question is did he have to pay the royalties in order prior to the expiration of the lease in order to own them yes because somehow stark on them at the expiration of the lease let's assume that for a moment and that there is a colorable argument that the property owner would have on them and i think and with i understand we have we believe we had an ownership interest but i understand with the courts coming at a minimum i agree the property owners would have a colorful title to ownership not stark which comes back to if we have exclusive possession of the property except for mineral rights to the rights to the sand and gravel underneath it because you know what once that lease is over guess what you don't have any right to anything but intel that leases over i do have a right to exclusive possession of only for purposes of retrieving excavating planing sorting and selling with the payment authority all the sand and gravel in and why are these premises it wasn't for you to put cattle in there you get there you're there for one purpose you're there to get out all the sand and gravel and undermine the lease premises that's it and we had exclusive possession of the property for that purpose on how we're honest you start remove his property his  as far as you are concerned you ignored or left or it's ok for him to come on the property and dave is equipped if he owned the equipment and we have and we believe he did well what made you think he did yes i want to yes or no answer is your position that the lease required there's a provision or lease the required start to have paid the land owner of title lease is up up not only is that my position that's what the party stipulated to where in the contract does that say well again when the when the contract says they have a year to remove in material on which royalties ha release should have read they have one year to pay the royalties and remove the materials that's not what it says it's not that that's not what the party stipulated to and that's not what their argument was at trial difference why do we care the son of an agreement doesn't make it different because that's how they're claiming title now they're claiming they're claiming that their original lease which would work except for the the claim that you made though i don't see the claim in with whom we stipulated mr lentz and stark don't joint stipulation of fact specifically states that they had they did not pay the royalties prior to the expiration of the lease as required under the stark lease that's not a hypothetical that's not a gas so the property then goes to the property and assuming that's correct your honor we still have exclusive possession of the n a timely fashion your you were going to force them to prove all that you do before they could go in and remove those who are as you said you have exclusive possession that once you're in the states place or even if they had already paid all that and they had complied with all terms you're taking the position that they had to prove that to you before they had access to those stockpiles they would have had to show us some indication by the property owners in january and offered to sell the stockpiles ok and we turned it down because we felt we already owned them and so that is a significant and another thing on the settlement agreement findings by by judge lawrence is that the subtle man agreement which by the way includes more than just royalties it also required starke to sell real estate to the property owners so this is not a the extras when they when they file a verified complaint and attach a document to the verified complaint and say this document gives us these rights then they are asking the court to interpret those contracts otherwise i'm just a potted plant i sat there and listened to say well it's their contract i can't say anything and they attach it to a verify complaint and therefore i have nothing to say about this you're talking about the back needed instrument i'm talking about the supplement agreement yes i'm talking about  specifically the sum of money because their argument to the trial court was their rights arose under the solomon agreement they did not argue that their rights arose under the prior starke lease and that's an important distinction around gravel n and under the ground but nothing on top we took issue with that on their motion for summary judgment and said we have rights to the any other material that was the trial court was they stopped in mid sentence and didn't read the rest same paragraph that up that said sharp also had the right and the right to enter and remove sand and gravel at the lessees discretion and that's how that went down and what i'm saying and it created the dark trampers affidavit created by a whole issue of material back on who owned the property what our rights were in the material and how it was royalties before the expiration of the lease we agreed that we had not paid any oil to us before the expiration of the lease as required by the contract that we didn't agree with that but that's because that the property owners took the position in this case that they own this property that they own this property it's not a position we took her by both sides of the pile the piles to stockpiles and we had every right to negotiate which is exactly what we did and you know the notion i mean getting back to this language of the use owned by that's not in their lease that's under their lease and all it says except for stark and property belonging to stark we had one year now we disagree with that throughout the proceedings but then when you look at the summit agreement the settlement was they're selling these stockpiles to us and they're selling them to us for world peace that we owed under the agreement and that's exactly what we did time could it work well i think when you look at the correspondence going back and forth there was an ambiguity in the contract about that i mean the contract provided the royalties would be paid paid the month after they were removed which you know once the contract said that after they removed it from the from the property and used it then they'd they would look at the low tech it's never think else and then they would pay the workers and they had to pay a certain minimum about each year under the contract but you know that was part of the problem they had they had basically ascended to us removing a lot of those materials storing them of eleven acre track and if they are in force the contract during the period of the contract the property owners the said well you should pay royalties when you remove that with another from the property and used them for you know construction products for projects or whatever but we excavated more than we needed so that was stored on the on the on the property of course ukraine is provided for that there's stockpiles you can have  something beforehand but you know when you look at the score correspondence beforehand i disagree with you totally with this is reference to this one contract work or this one letter you look at the correspondence going back and forth between  they're dealing with these issues and you know i mean they were trying to interfere and they had to add it to your point they had absolutely no basis for that they didn't want well they objected to it and quite frankly