the obligation of where the building was taken off permissibly but all the area around it was not fixed midway's argument is based on specific language in the lease and particularly upon th to well you don't it and that's subject the argument it happens to persist period of time and the time was when the building was removed clearly in the post petition pre rejection period that's why we believe that it's entitle to an administrative expense but i do think you know every type of claim is different you have cases for manchuria cases for taxes you have all kinds of different cases and really if section three sixty five think if you read carefully this court did in fact incorrectly follow the accrual approach in that case the proof of the claim that was submitted in that case was calculated using the crew approach it's all right so right in the case and the court it's the easy example easiest example to start with you know typically randi is paid on the first day of the month for for that month and courts that use the cruel approach routinely say well if we fall in the middle of this thing you still have to pay the rent for the post the titian period even though technically the rent was due back on the first if you file bankruptcy on the fifteenth from the fifteenth to the thirtieth that rent the cruise during the post fishing period that that's the starting point a commonsense approach that they're in there on the sixteenth seventeenth eighteenth of the month and rent is the cost of occupancy so it's a you you look at the research to see which obligations have to be paid yes rent is an obligation  provided for in the lease but you don't look at the lease to determine when it approves it's a practical approach because the whole point of three sixty five three the principle behind it is that the rain will or get january first and reject the least on march thirtieth the court is not going to say under the cruel approach just because their rent payment wasn't due tell april wine you're not entitled to any rent is an administrative expenses from january first march thirtieth and so i think you have to divorce the concept of what's governed by the lease and what's what's governed by what actually occurs when these expansions actually crop up that that's the crust of to apply the principles to the very same types of claims that kay forest is making in this case and the court followed right along it said yes that's right if each yes you have to prove  not certain about that i have to i'll try to review where point to the obligation to remove the crew when the buildings are removed where they were when the building was removed that's one of them because look they have a right to remove the building when they remove the building that's when the obligation crystallizes when the reason that they have an obligation to remove the building yes so they were going to have to remove the building they were and they did terminated or expired they did they didn't under the terms of the lease but i don't as i said i don't think the terms of the lease govern the administrative expenses analysis and the only point i would say about the bill in response to the building coming o beforehand is you have to be very careful because if you go too far with that argument basically every obligation in a lease becomes preposition i mean they're obligated to pay when throughout the term also arose when they signed the lease so i don't think that specifically talks about maintaining obligations that arose under the least during the post petition creep titian period this simply did not arise during that period during the creek rejection period why doesn't that why doesn't the obligation of crew at the time that the midway l obligation somehow elevated to exalted status where it gets one hundred percent paid and what congress decided to elevate into that particular status is only things that arise during that particular time period pos obligated to remove the building and swabbed at the end of the last why did they remove the building they removed the building because they believed it had some value to them elsewhere at one of the other tree source operational aspects of the building the building had some value after it could be preserved for the benefit of the reorganise bankruptcy debtor but that doesn't necessarily mean that the debtor needs to be tagged with an obligation where the landlord is essentially getting a windfall above the claim  go towards a lap removal that's correct your honor sixty five that's correct your honor and furthermore i mean if there were a monthly payment obligation then that would fall within section three sixty five days three as well particular subsidiary of tree sourced midway was struck down basically at the time the debtors filed for bankruptcy several years earlier had not been used there's no logical reason to attribute wear and tear to the  to the post petition for rejection period so not only is the record the void of any evidence of anything accruing during that time period it also states that there was no activity going on so it begs the question obligated you to leave the premises room clean and you decided to reject the lease and you just walk out and leave the trash on the floor and make that and make the landlord come in and hire a crew to clean it i think you are just to quick factual points the building that was removed did have substantial value about two hundred thousand dollars in value to midway and you'll find that it doesn't have any value the slab is not that's correct if page fifty eight of the record and