don't clerk will you please call the next case  any responses to questions of the court man complaint sought relief of one month's rent which is a remedy provided for under the ordinance when a landlord violates section one hundred section one hundred of the section the ordinance the says the landlord before they enter isn't title to the remedies described under section zero nine zero of the same ordinance if the landlord violate section one hundred in this case it wasn't disputed that the landlord violated section one hundred or code violations in the twelve months before that it should say that the tenant terminate the lease if the landlord fails to cure the failed to comply the fourteen days after see that notice the lease will terminate i think that's what your honor is getting right when you agree though that  what you know the lease may terminate no terminate it is what's written in his notice and i understand that the defendant in their brief suggest that well maybe there's a defect of notice i think that's what the import of that according it to the shall recover the actual damages or one month's from the show's mandatory they shall cover that's what they use the word shit so under the section do you interpret this is say they had a ten it must  seek terminations in order to recover  we take the opposite we think they don't have to terminate or even seek to terminate and worse recover the one month's rent we had to get that the notice said about terminations the notice says have fourteen days to please cure your failure to when the notice would terminate the fourteen days after receipt of the written notice would but is that a date it says they did it indicates that there must be it's going to be the fourth or the fifteenth you don't think the there is no date or the notice would take the test something that the landlord be notified of if in fact the lease was going to be determinable because the tenant has to fourteen days after receipt of an over six pyar the landlord doesn't cure their violation and the tenet can pick a day that's thirty days after that for the as we talked about in our two of our review it really works across purposes with what the evidence tent is here to make the tenant move out perhaps even make the time to send a written notice which is what i was getting at the section on i know it says hundred not disclosed code violations not disclosing utility shutoffs then they also have to show and were filled to comply with oh no this section you know when i taught them is they have to show also the landlord didn't disclose their phone number for their street address your corporate ng the whole section on i know if we're going to incorporate any requirements that you send this specific written notice and you have to incorporate this section there's no way around that i think if we're going disclose your street address they didn't disclose their phone number you better move out worse there's no downside for the indoor and their praises to the second point here if this is a big us language i think we can still discern from this with  or city council wanted to have happen then is supposed to be entitled to some damages to something some remedy to some incentive to pursue this if the landlord doesn't comply as we argue this is unfair to other landlords who are out there making their own properties look worse in the marketplace and the trial court's interpretation rules out perspective that is that people who are out there when this matters who haven't signed  trial court's ruling essentially gives every landlord no reason to comply with this ordinance and it's going to have to move out our interpretation still leaves the tenant with obligation or perspective town center written councils evident intent satisfied is to let the tenant recover one month's rent but perspective tenants recover one month's rent if in fact they simply require notice and a notice is just a cure period that's all that's all they're trying to incorporate made place to court the defendants are asking this court to uphold the role of the trial judge in this in this matter the trial judge correctly interpreted the clear meaning of sections ninety one hundred one ten a comply with the section the tenant may terminate so it doesn't say that they have to terminate so they have this option so in then so that a you reading those two sentences separately or what is you can go for the must run or you can go for broke don't wonder first two may terminate the rental agreement pursuant to the notice provisions of five twelve one ten day but you can terminations would refer to  initial steps of written notice under section one ten a but refers to the required notice that a rental agreement will terminate on a date not less than fourteen days after receipt of the notice by the landlord and written notice under section five twelve one ten a continues on that any such notice shall require that if the material noncompliance is not remedied within the time period so specified the tenant shall deliver possession of the drawing unit landlord within thirty days after the expiration of the time period specified in the notice if possession shall not be so delivered then the tenants notice shall be deemed withdrawn but if you read the books read the second sentence and oh no then it simply romney so taking the court's example is the tenet we're just asking for relief under under section under that second sentence which refers to a landlord failing to comply with the requirements of the section after receipt of red notice pursuant to section five twelve one ten day bob defined the term written notice pursuant to section five twelve one ten a requires then that that written notice not just be in writing but that it comply with just as written notes there's a difference of provisions there are a lot of provisions in that one today but written notice is a different well if that if the city council had wished for that interpretation to stand it forty days it's a killer period that's what causes it or why why wouldn't that makes perfect sense in that if the two sentences are separate as you have conceded then it would only make sense that you don't have to terminate twelve one ten days not a notice unless it says the written the rental agreement shall terminate if it's picture period is not satisfied with i guess that is the question i think it begs the question because the this with regard to you may terminate says that you have to abide by pursuit of the notice provisions all the provisions of one ten day the second sentence with regard to the rental only says you're saying absolutely so it's just kind of a back door because even though it says they're separate and you can independently just receive damages without terminating you still have to term it actually it's what the city it's how the city council chose to draft its ordinance saying this court has to presume that the city council chose those words written notice pursuant to section five for one ten day with some import if the city council had chosen to it could have said after receipt of written notice an unspecified this type of written notice that didn't require any sort of terminations or a date certain on the basis that the because they said written notice in the second sentence in the first sentence they say pursuant to the notice provision so they don't use the same word they purposely didn't use the same word is there anywhere else and this is where the wording is similar to the first sentence or the second set if you look at i would not be able to point the courts to any  simple webster's dictionary definitions of the term with rod would include to retract to remove from consideration those types of terms are not consistent with allowing attended to to proceed with a withdraw notice as the basis of a claim for rent for any type of remedy so would it would be our position that by its definition a withdraw notice cannot cannot serve as the basis for any type of remedy to help with some of the obtain the  but yet by terminating the agreement and then by tendering possession according to the terms of five twelve one sunday which is within thirty days after the expiration of the time period specified in the notice which then we would point the court to as as it noted in its prior arguments that there was not a specific date even identified in the notice at issue in this case so how would one even draw the thirty days pointing out the defectiveness of this particular notice issue and it is our position that the take of reading out of the ordinance is not necessarily at issue with the purposes of the ordinance purpose of the ordinance is not necessarily to grant attended a remedy and every certain case or to grant tenants the maximum remedy rather one state one stated purpose of the r l t o is to define the obligations and rights of both landlords and tenants and in this case the city council like to to condition that one month's rent on the termination of possession and surrendering of possession of the unit and what play with it that seems like a pretty extreme way to him landlord that can't repair that type of smell or there's some some very little you're eating situations where you can sort of but this is not one of those oh especially that the city council by allowing a tenant to determine whether or not he or she wishes to vacate the premises and to terminate the lease because the power and the tenants hands to determine whether or not this type of a a failure to disclose a code violation rises to the issue of something that makes the tenant wish to move out of the apartment and surrender possession of the unit it may be something where it's a code violation for say for example a sign was too large advertising rental apartments for sale or something like that and if that were the case  tenant may say that this doesn't rise to the level of something that's that's going to cause me to move out or feel that i need to move out and therefore in those cases the one month's rent remedy would not apply but and in those cases where i just decided that case there's no room and to them well that's what the city council well i can say that there's there's no remedy or no incentive for a landlord not to comply with the ordinance certainly a landlord who in that instance say that it's a failure to disclose some type of signed ordinance violation or something like that by failing to disclose that a landlord runs the real risk but a tenant will terminate a lease prematurely and then a landlord may lose future rent for that unit based on a tense unilateral decision to terminate that that we saw there there certainly is an incentive for well in order to comply with this ordinance regardless of whether or not this one month remedy applies  every certain case regardless of whether or not the tenant has surrendered possession with respect to the withdrawal of the notice that still does not change the fact that if we look in your section when i know the landlord was in receipt of the written notice and failed to comply in the period of time that the landlord has to comply to cure it's always a lesser period of time a shorter period of time than the date when that notice is going to be deemed withdrawn because it's thirty days after the fourteen days is already expired then that notice can be d we've got a time period after the fourteen days are up in the landlord's failed to cure all the elements of the met the second sentence of zero nine zero that calls for the months right now so we're saying we're agreeing with the find it that it got clear the tenant has to move out or there is no remedy perspective can't perspective ten it cannot move out cannot deliver possession we did refer in our brief to the provence al cases from the second district they talk about a different act but one of the important points that the court made was that the perspective buyers in that case never signed a contract but the disclosures that had been made to them were made in th reversed the trial court and said both perspective buyers do have a cause of action just read him which is not to break the lease they said because they never signed a contract they don't have the remedy of terminate the contract much like in this case where the ordinance city the tanisha said please cure your failure to comply with or in this case they told him what the failure was was disclosed the code violations for the twelve months and the year before we signed our lease you tell the man what to do you give him the chance to cure i did look back at the notice here in this case it does say within a couple weeks after you're in receipt of our notice and they did attach it's in the record on page thirteen a confirmation of when it was received by the landlord that's what refer to a different trial court ruling from a judge talk in support of his ruling in part and i understand it's of course persuasive at best but the ruling didn't find any point in this tenet had to move out so for those reasons we do think that probably or should be reverse a serious question you know thank you mr silverman mr johnson i want to compliment the attorneys on their arguments and on the briefs this matter will be taken under advisement recess for about five