question which would be reached only or for court felt that the applications filed in a timely fashion was whether the fees that were filed or were reasonable and to use the statutory language the different parties different locations but in terms of the timing of the decision the timing of the filings are virtually identi november two thousand and eleven fee we've cited to the court the rodriguez case which we believe is both instructive and controlling in this matter the question that was resolved in the rodriguez cases is virtually identical to the question presented to this court the statutory language interpreted is identical for all practical purposes fees sought in this case were sought greater than thirty days after the final order of the trial for liberty bill doesn't control his distinguishable in many respects at that at the time the libertyville litigants sought their fees for the case but still it was viable it was on appeal it was filed within thirty days after the or rather its final order so given those circumstances we don't believe there is any reason to go beyond an orderly reasonability of the fees that are requested because responsibility not on the sports responsibility the condemnation does not create a private cause of action for attorney's fees you must file your request for three three while that kind of a condemnation action is statutory language of seventy five i asked c s thirty ten five seventeen did not include a time limitation in which to file the motion right turning the legislature certainly could have included a time limitation but they did not the lack of the time limitations costs in the november tenth two thousand and eleven order madison county mass transit argues that the plain meaning of the eminent domain statute requires the defendants to file their motion for fees and costs within thirty days of the order grant deems just the rights of our land owners here is one of the most important rights imaginable the right to be secure in one's own property and even if in its brief the madison county mass transit district acknowledges that the eminent domain act protects the property ri landowners which are of the utmost and moreover we are simply seeking relief from a final judgment order under seven thirty five i o c s five to fourteen zero one but instead seeking an order in the eminent domain this type of order quite some time after the verdict or the settlement it is not unheard of to have a hearing regarding the payment or the amount of the state's interest as well as any other issues that may have come up after the case has been decided and according to my opposing counsel that entire tract of both defendants land was one that adequately or more importantly accurately described the land to be taken from the tour as in the anger's it would be against good conscience to allow the landowners in this case it's not recover their fees and co these fees and costs were expended not because of a lawsuit that they filed taking madison county mass transit to court like in the right of requests case but because madison county mass transit want to be in the tour as is land for a bike trail land that neither the defendants wanted to sell of their faulty legal judgment not some minor legal technicality to allow madison county mass transit to not bear the cost of the travellers would be completely unjust and unfair to the land furthermore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the amount of attorney its discretion and its discretion should be overturned only if there's a finding of abuse of discretion according to the shin case and the case at bar was a complex one indeed the court looked to the reason about reasonable value of the legal services rendered the result that the traverse was just clarify a few items that were raised by counsel the statement that the land was not disparate with specificity in this case and in some way that prejudiced the landowners is a bit of a stretch what was challenged at the trial court was the language of the resolution that was passed by the madison county cricket board when the complaint was filed when the documents were submitted to the juries and the youngers they knew precisely what would take place from a parcel of ground which was the full parcel that the torah says in the overs on in this case so it's not that the landowners weren't aware of her size area that was being sought by transit authority in this instance and i think you know they relied upon this technicality that the court focused on that you didn't put precisely the language of the legal description in the resolution authorizing only condemnation action but once the action was instituted all of the information was in fact contained within the documents that were given to the parties involved in a way that aspect of this case shows why it's so important that this court respect the time limitations that are applied to actions such as this because we didn't do anything within thirty days after the court's order were foreclosed from doing it's the same principle that should be applied to any other action that's taken outside of the time council suggests that by including language in there or in their written submission of argument to the court seeking any further relief as being a reason that this court should disregard typical construction of statutes and say well you protected your interest in that regard if in fact they're going to say that the trial court made its decision based upon this written submission in part i would suggest and if the trial court didn't deter us attorneys fees in that order then it's rescued a cottage they can't get it now so they can't have it both ways they can have the trial   order being respected in one sense and not be respected in the other they claim that statutory interest is often given well after thirty days after a final decision in a condemnation as in rodriguez at any time during the process i haven't seen one citation that they could have put in their answer in their travers to seek attorney's fees if they were successful in fact they were quite so determined in the language of their motions or perverse to point out to the court a host of reasons why the transit district had not complied with the condemnation act in th so they could have asked for the attorney says there's nothing in the statute that says you have to wait until you win to seek attorney's fees of course you don't have much more of a shame to see them before but what is the harm in asking for  you would be given leave then to file your bill requests and to just provide the poor with the reasons why you believe you're entitle these many fees and to submit records that were contemporaneous with the work that was done in this instance it appears clear that the records were generated after this case was heard and i finally determine what was