and i believe in the trial court area on one and deals with them whether it's necessary to actually show that you made some type of physical improvement on piece of property in order to be entitled to  claimant did not contract wreck we with the property owner of the claimant the engineer contracted with someone who was buying the property and therefore we proceeded on the knowingly permitted standard under the not under the statu do when she was asked repeatedly did you have any objection to the either the firm or the work that was mean performed she said no under my reading of the cases which is contrary as you counsel for the banks reading  the knowingly committed standard is it is that white liberal it is if the owner knew that some work was being done and didn't jack that's knowingly permitted that meets the standard there are a lot of that if a property owner is aware of the work being performed on their property and they do not object that meets the standard for instance in those cases or like with carpenters and plumbers  cracker tavern that was being sold on the contract the tenant who was the middle person if you will your own contract in the hasim work done without the owner's knowledge and it was work at the rear of the building like a staircase or something like that the work proceeded to conclusion and there was some evidence at trial or honor that down the owner might have driven by the area once and seen the work in process and didn't object as we believe that the word knowingly permit any statute are to be taken in their general sense of being aware of the work and consenting to the improvements that is the initiation of the improvements in other words if you go induce the transaction and white wine honestly there are many many many many cases where the owner doesn't do anything and in this case this is a machine that nothing to induce that other than enter into a contract that i suppose for sale that allows those who luminary studies to be done when she insisted he did that what happened and in fact it did happen that she didn't say i want you to go out hire an engineer  held what's even clearer in my opinion and that is the error in the conclusion that you have to show some type of physical proof going on piece of property in order to be entitled to them and explain  subdivision where the locks in the house this was just a big twenty or thirty and that was for her that's correct that's what harkins contracted for him to do and then that evolved into other things like a weapon and  wetlands delineations study and some other things that were wired to get that the project up and going and in fact one house was built on the front on the property and one locks and that was it and then the  classic set of engagement for what the engineering work was necessary to make the subdivision build on the rather strange aspect to the trial court's holding abou and that's where the trial court and i and counsel for the bank have they have a disagreement the statute says that if you are an architect structural engineer of work a professional engineer or a lan buildings they used to not be able to lean real estate based on that over time that was changed architects rather than said if you provide a service you draw the line you have a lead that was expanded to include engineers in this type of situation would be doing in the novel says you don't have to show that there were labor material furnished to the real property at all it says the service that you performed as a professional engineer or an architect is owes an obligation on us that's not there to show physical improvements of property in order to be entitled to leave and i believe the traffic or expand it in went beyond what the case law require to the analysis or the facts that we have in this instance anyway so if there are no other questions i will sit down and respond if there is  states that act on tractor can have a lean in the contractor directly contracts with the owner that's not the case here as in the complaint or if the contractor contracts with somebody knowledge of the contract and work that's one second is a failure to protest to the work being done and the third is an acceptance of the benefits of the improvements of the property so all three of those foll are the knowingly permitted test those are all factors for that and i think mr crump he is trying to separate those two and that's important in this case because all three of them have to be proven in order for  they knew something was being done to protest the only thing the only thing the only quote that missed miss shayne stated in her deposition was she replied yes to a question in which mr crump effed language to her and stated that while you knew that there was some plat work done and you any new engine hearing in and she said yes every other question that was asked about that she said if she didn't she do not have now she's in and in in the briefs and no state that that the owner had no knowledge of any work done by plaintiff no knowledge of any work so this was it in the brief there mr company raises issues of we're trying to state that there has to be a high level of detail knowledge of what works is that what we're saying is that she had no knowledge of any detail she had no no knowledge of any detail but the work was being done the the three factors is you have to protest the work being done well how can you protest first while she didn't have knowledge of what any details of what the work was to protest and secondly the work was done in an off done in order for potential buyers to determine if they want to buy a property whether or not a bank wants to lend money to that party it's all due diligence when it doesn't improve the property all that's necessary in a move for again that work was done only for purposes of determining as a minute by mr harkins determining whether or not it was feasible to buy when they should buy so if back comes back or is that it wasn't a benefit to her because it could have come back and said that that no it's not feasible because for whatever reason it can't be subdivided into enough lots so the work still determined that it wasn't feasible to purchase it so i don't see in that's the circumstance i do not know that i don't think that the record has any information on that at this point of the improvement issue there's three cases that haven't been cited that the difference between our opinion as to this due diligence work done the ornstein case was an architect that if some drawings and sketches for a hotel apartment in chicago for a party that did not own in at the time to do it successfully didn't purchase it and of course stat case l g he's case is very important because it's actually a case where a third party obtain a license from a railroad company to put in power transmission lines charging for the transmission of electricity in the ground and making money and presumably some of that money even goes to the owner and of course still said no that's not a improvement that benefited the land and that's not legal work so the key difference in arguments here is that there has to be a direct benefit to the landowner in this game that was introduced by the way in order and that's not the case it's clearly that the right see that's not the case before this all started it was a vacant lot you know nothing was was there and proved and again he stated that he did the work only to determine if he should purchase the real estate it was all due diligence work so the work that somehow they're more stringent requirements is not consistent with the case law to suggest that the record reflects that what my client was doing was due diligence work only or or whatever the captain language counsel used i completely unsupported by the record mr harkins was asked about forty times in his deposition by mr kraft while if the engineering worked at shown you could only build x number of homes on this property you subdivision in a suburban environment that's what my client did suggest that they needed and they never left the office and were never on the property is not supported by the record they perform a wetlands elimination study on the property they had the marking out where the estate you have to account for that in other areas of the subdivision if you can't build houses here you have to provide for some additional law somewhere else so this is just they sat in some office somewhere and did nothing but look at a computer it is wrong  not supported by the record it was physically on the ground carol skank testified repeatedly in her deposition and i've quoted in my brief yeah i knew they were there i did not object i knew hawkins was hiring engineers i didn't know the deep details of the contract you know mr kraft like the court to conclude that because she didn't know what the unit charges were for a particular work it was me down and she didn't know anything that's not what the  in a part of the record that's a benefit to anyone and maybe a benefit to the bank who may own the property in case so that was worth its public record of public knowledge