project they got drafted out and then it was ok and you know kids parties newhouse group they settled there  there's no really or injunction the remedy specifically under that bourne's it damages us repair and that's why we did not do it for sure in the context is this the presiding judge a trial but the judge motion to strike the request for attorney fees there was ok so at the second judge basically was that then another judge was of the cases we cited in ordinances interpreted the same way as the statute is interpreted you have to give fact to the intent of the legislator and if you look at the case law here the intent of the legislator or thirteen eleven thirteen fifteen is to prevent regulations to prevent or not to come in after the fact and seek damages for it's to prevent that and that's so that's a stand cheated by the language of the of the statue it says an owner who shows his property will be substantially she realized that there was an adequate showing on her home and on the on the adjacent home she had to act that that's what to correct a violation means it means she should have went into court at that time not seventeen months later seeking damages and meant that at that time she should have gone into court to seek to enjoin the violation in other words to seek to have quality properly sure it's the foundation of the house that it was working on and the adjacent house so what it would be your position then that you probably did not become evident during the course of the construction but only became eviden allows a court to issue injunctions allows a court to issue temporary restraining orders there's nothing in there that allows a court to go back into time to prevent a violation of the of the other remedies means negligence just like what happened in this case where you can seek money damages for a claim i mean both claims here are or basically this judge already said garden variety negligence claims the only relief that was able to get in this case because she added by lesion under the ordinance was attorneys there is no distinction between the damages that were being side here and the ordinance itself again on its face says that he the prevailing party is entitle to attorneys fees when they have furthered that statute and that's consistent with what all the case law says that interprets the statute so what would you  correct correcting but i think sampson doesn't apply because in that case the court awarded tourney's fees because the plaintiff there went above and beyond what she was well above and beyond a regular negligence claim and furthered the purpose of the statute in that case the plaintiffs identified within a month of the instruction that there were issues retained her own engineer and then a month after that filed suit seeking an injunction seeking an injunction and i think in you know samson is distinguishable based on that fact alone because in this case plain just knew of their damages but waited seventeen months to file suit seventeen months that i think is contrary to the purpose of the of the ordinance that says that you should prevent a violation so i think sampson is just doing a show on their loan and then i also think again going back to you know interpretation of  what the term correct means i think the dissent got it right in there that the that the court was overreaching when it was defining what correct should mean i e corrective action you know the dissent points out the statutes that the poor ha referred to were lewd and statutes that ordered up plaintiffs after they had eluded to go back and sort of you know remedy what they did and you know the centimes of that was overreaching and i think also the burros case that we cite and i realize that it was a federal court case but i think the reasoning in that sound the court there made a distinction between cause of action and remedies it went through well let me stop you for a moment is it your position though that prohibited it well even so your honor in order to to find a negligent to find in favor of helen back on the negligence claim you violation of the statute is a crime efficient case for negligence so they would have had to show regardless that already violated the excavation statute by not shortening your are not doing what they were doing to the statute but i don't think that under the ordinance it affords them the right for attorney's fees necessarily because violation but if you look at the term here under and again i misspoke with cited some cases that say here under it so back so if so facto means under the act but if you look at what here under really means here under  means under the provision of the statute that they're bringing the case under and if you look to the language of the ordinance again it's everything about that the language of the organs implies that it should be brought as an injunction and trying to claim to prevent a about it is your are you going repairs fixing what had already happened but to correct a violation means that while you would have had to have gone and improperly short the violation in this that the allegedly that they did violate under the relief to go and have quality really shore and do what it was supposed to do under the excavations well i don't seems to be that if if you can go in and get your damages you're really left empty if you have to then paper the attorneys to prosecute the war but i don't i think that opens a slippery slope and you know again some of the cases that we say that sort of deal with that issue i mean what if if you were to implement an attorney speed vision for every billing hood violation that an owner had against an adjacent landowner you're going to have a lot of litigation here front of your honor because the we're talking about this particular stiff where one  is already interpreted as loud in this situation but again your honor i think that you know in especially in the higginbottom case where the court found that the there was an end of normally a large amount of time that went by where these neighbors joined in on the city's lawsuit and then tried to recover attorney's fees years later for violations that they didn't necessarily back them and that you know would prevent in the future a developer from coming in and developing a property that had existing building code violations you know again i think it's a slippery slope to allow neighboring landowners and owners to come in and slippery slope kind of  appropriate words for this situation they got no pun intended i said i don't need it but you know i'll take the panic us but you know again your honor i think that you know this is going to open up the door for all sorts of litigation being brought where where a garden variety is judge fargo pointed out this is a garden variety negligence claim that you know someone's coming in and taking on attorney's fees to it when they didn't do anything to further the purpose of