and so we're actively involved in that process there's certainly some overlap of the issues of the two appeals and again that's why i come to that i think comes to the court in a relatively unusual procedural posture because we're going to have three  concerned that the plane is going to receive a windfall adverse effect of recovering right from my client and the full value the property from the offending contaminating property owner and so i guess we're  environmental because oversinging is at some point in time the only thing before the court in the first case in the first appeal was the narrow legal issue of interpretation of the contract they never supergame issues they never give us an the property they immediately notified us and because of that now the review all term which was five years has been cut off eighteen months since the days well that's true we didn't dispute that we notify them the court was going to have to answer damage questions regardless of the circumstances have the property been sold or not we're going to have to answer questions of the fair value of the property have to have the landlord down you know taking reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages  terminated and under lease we have the right to terminate so we did so so their argument was you can't answer the judgment of the appellate court as mandated because that judgment was for a five year renewal term and we now mitigated the damages but but the question the only question is what is the tenants obligation for that eighteen month period well that's not even within here that's and that's not true you're exactly that's  the environmental contamination was fully disclosed the heart by the contaminated because they were the oxygen in fact the palmers down letter and this isn't the record on appeal only that in the third appeal they got a letter from mart a long time believe know about this environmental contamination for a long time it stayed in possession of the property there's no evidence of any few things that would render the property untamable and you'll get into the admission and thirty  there's a difference between expiration of the lease which was may of two thousand and fourteen and sooner terminations police by the manner in accordance with the provisions of these what happened here is that the landlord exercised its right under obligation to heart to try to mitigate the damages it went out after this that the property at the be tried to find a new ten or a buyer they did they found a buyer so they cut off what could have been five full proceed with something that just is no longer viable and that really is our first erema to the system see and it's the second is to stand there no longer a lease holder they're seeking a declaration a five year lease at the time that they went in and ask within about a week or so decide whether you both agree to consolidating these appeals and and and if you don't agree somebody can make a motion you know in which somebody objects or you can do that we're not going to i don't think ok well thank you both here for your arguments to date and the matter will be taken under by as many will before and they were written this this who comes out will will deal with the consolidation issue and right now the court will be in brief recess