that all is mr in fisher before you began our view the format for this argument just as if your in the courtroom in mount vernon each side will have up to twenty minutes for your argument the appellant will also have up to five minutes f rebuttal you will see the timekeeping device on my screen one time has expired i will bang the gavel finally please remember no part of brass and only the court of the court is permitted to record these proceedings today held obligates the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff was in thirty days for any increase in real estate taxes or insurance premiums on the paragraph or does not when it the cause or the nature of the increase in insurance or real estate taxes this case only concerned real estate taxes is the issue or argument about insurance the record indicates the plaintiff's real estate taxes over the course of this need and up and that the defendant did not ok for all of the increase in the has been a year to year for what the cell phone people believe is their relative increase i believe that is correct ye course being a lease where the person leasing the property only pays rent i love sharma pre determined but even under the that increased real estate actions but instead of doing that they simply entered into an agreement where the defendant a for the increase in real estate tax per caused by the improvement as opposed to caused by any other and i recognize that you are i think peter was the last niedermayer was the one handling us at a large portion of it yes so do you know how the parties have  be paid every year over the years it is my understanding that one or the other party called the a another would be due to an increase in the air and another would be due to an increase in the mo flyer how would those different types of tax increases be affected by those two questions d and leaves any dispute as to who wrote this least there seems to be some argument as to how we construe it against the drafter it appears to be a normally it does appear to be a form lease it is my understanding that this three other entities i represent are according to the plaintiff's appellant the successor tenants that stepped into the shoes of s s lp now the lease premises in this case is a small piece of land larger property in the lease it's defined as the premises the appellant's land is defined as the land it the a pelleas premises is just thirty eight feet by fifty feet just large enough to contain a cellular tower and that in fact is what it was used for now the trial court found that the lease is unambiguous it found that the defendants pallies are only responsible for increases in the rent in the taxes that are directly attributable to improvements on the property that is leased by the tenets of the trial court's reading of the lease did in fact read sections eight b and sections four in harmony and gave meaning to each of them i like to go through the sections there are only three sentences each on right now for the court section eight b begins by placing an obligation on the owner to pay all taxes assessments and the like when do it then gives the tenant access lp the right but not the obligation to pay such expenses if you own a fails to do so and then to deduct those amounts from the rent or to demand reimbursement from the owner turning to the nd sentence of section eight b there is an exception to the directive that the owner bear all costs as it as such as taxes it specifically provides i'm going to quote the sentence quote notwithstanding the foregoing s s lp shall reimburse the owner within thirty days after the due date there of any increase in real estate taxes on the premises directly attributable section eight b then concludes in the rd sentence by placing responsibility on s s lp to pay any personal property taxes assessed on s s l keys p c s equipment which is a personal communication service leaves paragraph eight your argument about limiting you agree this contract has to be ran as a right absolutely impaired driving eight a it's you just referenced in allows your client to actually move the premises wherever it needs to move it in order to be efficient would you agree with that under certain contingencies for  premises on land as reasonably necessary or appropriate to maximize its efficiency and center etc so when you read that it doesn't seem like your client can't just move around willy nilly it has to be driven either by condemnation or by another name a hill or to be in the way or there would be some change in the land it would make receiving a cellular signal and retransmitting it on difficult yes it does give my client the ability to then move the cell tower to another portion of the la meaning that unless otherwise except it the owner is generally responsible for all expenses including taxes the st sentence of section four establishes that rent is payable in advance annually each year intent that the lease is a gross lease and that rents includes expenses such as maintenance taxes and insurance but final sentence of section or which is what the appellant relies upon it addresse reimburse the owner within thirty days after the due date their own of any increase in real estate tax and insurance premiums this sentence properly is understood to refer to the timing of the payment use of the words notwithstanding the fore going shows that it is an exception to the annual create payment of rent is paid in a rears thirty dollars days after demand from the owner now notably the census does not address anywhere or section for what property is referring to it does not say what real estate property is taxed or is insured that's because it's not necessary and it's only referring to the timing of a payment now as just this kate cast brought up earlier is key or i'm sorry take case justice case i apologize i was just as just this case pointed out earlier the court is to apply canons of contract instruction section eight be earnest as taught by the supreme court in thomson vs gordon and in doubt endowed limited vs gleason a case relied upon heavily by the appellant a contract must not be read in a way that would render any terms or purpose yet this is exactly what the appellant asks the court to do by claiming that section four subsumes section eight b article cited by appellant in his opening brief understanding the modified gross lease actually explains that quite well and points out that a gross lease is generally understood by default to be where everything is on the owner except as otherwise it identified by the specific terms of the contract whereas a net lease would be in the other direction that is interesting because in the st district in chicago citibank versus erie terminal nine hundred and eighty one on actually addressed this very issue and said that reference to a gross lease or net lease is not necessarily control and that the better approach is to read the terms of the lease themselves and to go with the specific terms over the general d approach of being a grossly sorry net leaks notably because that's one of the issues i'm grossly and so i am concerned about the trial court's order and language that was used by the jobs and then you may have misinterpreted what is a gross lease versus a modest thing so my question for you is does it really matter in this team it does not matter at all and i believe that the trial court all was still correct applying the rules of the canons of contract instruction we get to the same exact same answer and i believe that's what the trial court did in stating that it was a grossly that is not inconsistent with being a modified grossly versus  over the general which is one of the one of the three can is a contract instruction that supports the trial court's ruling court there are the supreme court found that the lease in question was not ambiguous and it did so and it reached its holding in no ambiguity by applying the and in a contract instruction that courts will generally avoid interpretations that render contract terms surplusage postponed again this is what would have to occur in order to being section eight b to be subsumed by section four now and the  connor i guess the rd candidate contract construction that i would like to address is the same one that i just mentioned before which is a specific term in a contract trumps a general term and that's not only in chicago a city bank  the st district it's also a premier title company versus donahue from the nd district here section eight b is specific about what the tenant must pay ten dollars it must pay increases in taxes on the premises directly attributable to improvements on the premises now as i mentioned earlier section four does not even identify the property that is taxed or insure it is a general provision now this brings that is correct there's no i'm on aware of any dispute as to what the amounts are in terms of what it has been paid by the defendants under their interpretation of the contract  raised about the increase in assessment versus the increased tax rate and the increased lying yet so to defend his position is that only increase attributable to the improvement on the premises are owed by the defendants so if there is an increase in value as there was in rd chain that was attributable to the improvement of the premises the building of the cell tower that is owed by the defendants if there is an increase in rate or multiplier only the portion that relates to the improved improvement increase would be payable by the defendants and that's under the specific provisions of section eight b which very clearly limit the responsibility of the defendants and that's the number of the assessor has been biting yes that is my understanding the in the assessor states that it is providing the increase in real estate taxes due to the improvements i am unaware and there's nothing on the record as to whether either of the other increases occurred and whether there was any discussion about calculating if we could read the following attachments we would see that there was no increase in us in assessed value through the im improvements on the premises i'd imagine it just took the assessor's office some time to get around to it i do not know the reason and the record silent on why it took so long in seems to me though that with that with some kind ability to determine this that the contract could be construed i'm not saying it is any could be construed as ambiguous why would you disagree with that on the few reasons your honor st of all to be ambiguous and not only has to be capable of two interpretations they must be reasonable and here an interpretation that the tenant of a thirty eight dollars by fifty foot or sion of a much larger land is responsible for any increase in real estate taxes or insurance premiums would be unreasonable for interpretation nd even in the event of an ambiguity i do want to address the point that the appellant made about destroying against the draft or there is no evidence at all in the record that addresses who drafted or negotiated the contract now it does appear that the original form of the contract came from my client but clearly the appellant had input to it we find the appellant's address in there twice we find it the appell social security number is on it we have no evidence whatsoever as to what negotiation or revisions took place and so the records been silent on that or over the i will i do want to address the argument that that all the ordinary interpretive guys have been exhausted both quote so much like the supreme court did in doubt and doubt application of canons of contract interpretation can lead to the conclusion that the contract is not ambiguous in doubt and doubt the court recognized that the other that the plaintiff had asserted a different meaning that could be ascribed the contract but after applying the canons of contract interpretation apply if i understand that argument correctly notwithstanding the foregoing says that despite the previous sentences in that section and section four about timing with regard to rent an insurance increases in rent and insurance doas are payable in arrears thirty days after demand it goes to timing it's an exception to the annual prepayment i would point out that section eight be the sentence that on which the defendants rely also includes the exact same words now with scant stand in the foregoing it's an exception to it being a gross lease and that all of the expenses are the owner's responsibility it says saying that just the  increases in the real estate taxes attributable to improvements on the premises will be the responsibility of the temple thank you so much it would make no mistake let me just ask him what about the apple lease argument that you can build the pole barn on the property improve the property and under your construction he sell folks would be liable for all that improvement what would you say to that in your interpretation real estate taxes under paragraph four of the contract i think that if they'd had qualms about doing that it could have simply changed or of the contract to read  three requested us to consider that is the reasonableness of the language of the contract in determining ambiguity do you think that's a rule of construction under contract law it can be and there's nothing further