absolutely the only thing that was in the agreement there were four major points that were in the agreement the first one related to the price that we pay for the properties the second one related to when the payment would be made the third related to win the title would pass which is going to be on september first two thousand and nine when the payment was made and the fourth point out with the possession of the property which would be september second the day after the title gives you forget something kind of yes not with respect to the pandemic because your honor the statutory right to abandonment has been well settled in illinois case after case after case the only way that could have been addressed in waived is if it was explicit in the agreement in every poder your first question did any of those agreements reference a word abandonment the answer is no as a matter of fact in the argument below judge white asked has there ever been a case that council can cite where the right to abandonment has been denied where there has been an agreement that relates to the price in the answer by all counsel was no your honor this case of first impression and in the crystal lake case which we cited in our brief it references in that case that it is quite common in eminent domain proceedings for the parties to reach an agreement as to price of they don't have to go forward with the trial in a jury to determine fair compensation and your honor the nature of condemnation proceedings is essentially to reach what would be fair compensation for the properties then once that is determined a judgment is entered as to the price and then at that point the village in this case or m has the opportunity to abandon before they take possession prior to taking possession in title passing they have to right to walk away from it in this case there was an agreement re price it in possession nowhere does it say they gave up their right to abandon so what happened was we came in an august thirty first two thousand and nine just prior to the date that the money was awesome believe were september first and we said this project has become financially infeasible we don't have a developer we can't go through with it the economy has collapsed and moreover we have environmental contamination on two of the properties which we thought could be resolved for a much lesser amount and in the meantime we did become more significant i think it come from one point eight to perhaps three point five m for those reasons they walked away to go for the right well the tr he or city or village the courts have been very reluctant to do so because a i want to believe the birds are going to be imposed upon the taxpayers where they have done or have been instances of where there has been misrepresentations from our something thet indicates bad faith under those circumstances they may decide to apply equitable stoppel none of those factors are present here there is not one bit of evidence that the village misrepresented anything other then we intend to take these properties and then the village is faced with a number dilemma it's because they can't go forward with it so the consequences of forcing them to go forward with what was a judgment on price only is going to put the burden on the taxpayers in the legislature in their wisdom has said as a mad matter of public policy with property owners versus the larger interests and their opinion of the village we're going to give the village right to walk away and  well settled law that says if you're going to waive something particularly a statutory right it must be explicit and express everyone was represented by counsel if they wanted this agreement to waive their right to a ban minute should have been explicit in your honor if there had been any agreement that had that waiver in it and we would not be here today this would have gone forward but there was nothing in it so what the property owners are one of your earlier questions with respect to the village waiting until august thirty first for example to get the notice and looking at some of the other jurisdictions that have been cited in this case california is one i think it was a case of the second circuit the cold case in some of those jurisdictions they give a definite frame of time in which you can ban sixty days for example in one of the cases i recall so after sixty days of the village is going to go forward or they're not here  imposed a time limit the only thing the legislature has said under seven dash one ten is prior to taking possession once you take possession you cannot abandon the less all parties consent to the course we don't have that december of two thousand and six and the parties to go she did the price of a movie over a period of time and eventually reach an agreement sometime in early two thousand and eight and then they provided for a deposit date in was a quick take to determine the price and if your honor knows in a quick take proceeding you can take possession and you're just determined employment very price and at that point the city had actually deposited with the  important in that first district case was the judge quinn said he didn't see any basis to distinguish between a quick take and a condemnation perceiving that it was going to go to a verdict in terms of the application of the given their fees for having to defend the kind of nation proceeding so the legislature to the statute is said here's the remedy book if you will allow you to build the time to the city who who started this kind of  proceeding if we have banned it so i think that addresses the issue of injustice now is it perfect no is there inconvenience into having brought this absolutely but the legislature has wade those interest in this is what they came up with as a remedy and also in that city chicago for serious case there was some suggestion in that case about bad faith because they were suggesting that maybe the city after they had condemned the property and then backed off were going to try to condemn it later after the value dropped and then get a second bite at the apple and this court found there was no evidence that that was the case there's no evidence that this case if that's what they wanted to do in fact they want to get as far away from this project as  can and that was indicated when they filed their motion to abandon so i'm sure your honor i see my time initial time has expired but i do just want to emphasize that the legislature has made this right to abandon and conditional take one second to get organized here and most importantly and i think your honor you reference this pledge if you want it was final and disposed of all issues all issues with the exception of one and that was the environmental issue that mr reagan just referred to  which had been raised or which could have been raised in reaction between the owners on one hand and fell wood on the other hand pertaining to the condemnation case now mr eaton apparently is a trying to split hears in between the difference between myself these shoe was specifically addressed your honor that you're talking about and it clearly if you look at the other terms of that little contract interpretation if you look at the other terms of the agreement it clearly is established in there that the agreement provides that because having come before the courts for the entry of certain stipulations and a final judgment to resolving all issues in this matter and specifically this is one of the matters that they gave up the agreement is extensive and it was as to the fair market value it says that they shelled the posit that they shall pay their wages their right to appeal and specifically again the language that i'm referring to is they disposed of all the issues which had been raised or which could have been raised in the section with the exception again of just the environmental matter so  wouldn't be here had that specifically been written then because that that's what this whole and domain thing is very statutory as we all can agree correctly construed so that cross  agree with you your honor that if we wouldn't be here today if there was a specific reference to abandon meant but i don't agree with you that this agreement did not contemplate the abandonment i think it clearly did and take title which is the harris thank his which by the way was decided by the same judge justice judge white who was the presiding judge of tax and miscellaneous remedies who hears all the condemnation of cases in cook county case at bellwood has cited two that says that they have an absolute right to set aside the party settlement agreement in the condemnation case and there's no case in illinois that's found that a continuity has a right to abandon after relinquishing that right which they clearly did in this case so what does bellwood do they go outside of illinois they go down to arkansas and they cite a couple of cases from arkansas and in those two arkansas cases a hole in the core of the us the  neither court was called upon to determine whether a condom or have relinquished relinquished its right to abandon but really what's most important is in the sally case is the court citing from the american l reports open the door recognize that the door was open they said while the right to abandon condemnation proceedings may not be relinquished by agreement or lost by a stoppel or i'm sorry what the right to aban that was entered there was a reciprocal fasting of the right my client's many of whom are here today had a right to receive those proceeds it's important to know that and i think justice you had alluded to the time frame here these cases were filed in two thousand and six we agreed as to a price in march of zero way it took eight months before final judgment orders agreed stipulation of final judgments orders were presented to the court all that time was used even according to bellwood to really negotiate these extensive agreements coming in now and saying that these are just agreements as to price is just wrong ali you know that's when we can know and i appreciate that when you when i think about possession we think about physical possession of a property when you look at real estate there's a bundle of rights that people have within the agreement the extensively negotiated agreements now would requested and the owners gave them each and every owner said that they will not execute or otherwise consent to any leases license agreements use or occupancy agreements for the entire period of time which extended from the time that the judgments were entered in november approximately november two thousand and eight in september one they agreed that there would be a complete standstill and dead bell would would have the  would have to go to bellwood to obtain consent which would be in their sole discretion so there was a bond of rights that were transferred in these agreements which are mis characterized as agreements only it's a value that's a long answer and i'm not sure or is they didn't physically invade the property they didn't just possess the owners but they certainly took control they've acted as if they had control over these properties for some time and that section does it sets the outer limit for which they can no longer abandon but it's certainly it is not the sole task for the existence of the expiration of the right to abandon what i'm saying is you can relinquish that right i'm saying exactly what the sally court said which they've cited his his authority is that you can relinquish the right to abandon by agreement and boy it makes a lot of sense to him the reason i say that is because it would be a logical if there was an absolute unconditional right will be ended and let me give you a couple of examples well first of all would be in this particular case where there was a judgment that was entered and after the judgment there's a non because of the civil law the state of illinois you say well we have a nonpayment of the judgment therefore we have a right to abandon therefore we can bring a motion to dismiss the complaint and therefore all of the judgment orders that we've  authentic effectively void it's a unilateral agreement no party could ever enforce that agreement in the future if this court decides that they have an absolute unconditional right to abandon the case  other is more practical as an eminent domain practitioner i can tell you what will happen is that in each and every case where there is a condemnation complaint filed whether the business is being taken is large or small it doesn't matter what happens after go sheet with the condemning entity they may or may not enter into an agreement after they enter into an agreement they mean in the past like they didn't here is case they may even take title but the war is going to pick up the phone is going to call as attorney and the attorney is going to say what do i do should i move should i withdraw the money in the attorneys now going to say if they have an absolute binding right i would sit still because once you move which you buy a new facility once you move your equipment in machinery and you dispossess yourself of your own property if they haven't asserted possession of that property and they don't have the right to bind themselves they have an absolute right to walk away that's a logical it doesn't make any sense so there really is no case law that supports this position that they have an unconditional right there it's a logical from a standpoint that would create unilateral agreements and third it's just not practical so the question then becomes is one of the agreements say and what the agreements say that were drafted again by bell one i'm giving you the time period of how extensive they are is that these these are addressed much more than just the value of the property they were stipulations not only it is to the value the timing of the payment in the possession dates by the way each of the possession dates in each one of these orders differed it was not always september second in some cases there were holdover  periods there were penalties for those holdover periods and i apologize i am very close to the end of what argument or steer but it be the end of the day they waive their right to appeal and justice is we talked about they gave away any and all right to abandon the only right that they reserved was the right to address the environmental issue it was they said again it's final disposes of all the issues with the exception of that environmental issue clearly any economic environment the municipalities face all of the owners face that same environment but that the law in illinois should not be changed because of the economic environment and hear what the asking you do is to change that law disproportionate burden of this public project a failed project shouldn't fall on the shoulders of a few but it should fall upon the shoulders of all of the municipality brought this action and really cast a long  cloud over these properties which right now makes them a little liquid these owners have illiquid assets and i thank you very much for your time facility beginning in two thousand and six based on representations by bell would that it was going to take the property that it should be used for its manufacturing facility by the powers of eminent domain and she began to look for an exit strategy it  heavy industry business with big machinery and loss for employees its efforts to find an exit strategy for this business accelerated when it received the agreed in stipulated judgment in two thousand and eight interact reliance upon that judgement entire business and signed a non computer agreement the transaction was signed in may of two thousand and nine and was to close in october of two thousand and beyond the agreed judgment which he also received from the village about what it letter dated august sixth two thousand and nine now this letter was dated just twenty five days before the bell it was to take and pay for the property pursuant to the great judgment in this letter bellwood instructed hansie to vacate the property by judgment the landowners face almost it actually in excess of two years of additional rent payments at an annual cost approaching one million dollars a year when this is all said and done and this lease expires at the end of two thousand and eleven hand she will have paid twenty seven months of rent taxes security and maintenance for a substantial manufacturing facility for which it is received actually no beneficial use or enjoyment o misrepresentations are are absolutely pro se here when you look at the august sixth letter sent just four weeks before they remake another great judgment we were talking about fraud or injustices and you know misrepresentation certainly that can be subject but would you pursue well i'm sort of detrimental reliance my client is pursuing or is attempting to pursue and that's another appeal that's before this court in inverse condemnation claim against the village and  at counterclaim that judge white denied that and go it's appeal that order so there's another case that will be before this court about whether we can so we've been trying to pursue this claim and go it has has it has took a take an appeal of the judge's decision not to stay that case so we're trying to seek some type of romany and another avenue but i get does not i don't believe it's preclude this court from providing that remedy here oh certainly certainly however if we have the legislature created this fish and we have to enforce a by simple clear understanding what is it seems to me we have a legislature that so that i would i would say exactly what mr o'toole began to say which is if you accept what's interpretation of the statute there could never be a viable settlement agreement settlement agreement to such a result a condemnation proceeding  waving i would say justice this doesn't have to be that case because i think it is in that it is a compass in the body of that agreed judgment that they did waive that right at the california supreme court cases cited in our brief in the case involving the los angeles times news publications that it is a compelling case and that is an end on decision of the california supreme court and its persuasive authority for this court but the facts next were less compelling here there was no great judgment there and yet they still use the dr record will stop a prevent exactly what's happening here after the substantial expenditure of funds to build a new facility to print the u with the what the legislatures provide it is that you have to if you're going to bandon you're going to have to pay their attorneys fees and costs for having to defend the condemnation or see if that's what they provide there is an inverse images well in your honor first of all i want that to mean dollar number to go and challenge we're not to the merits on that all there is is a complaint secondly we'll have to fight that fight because this is not they had lease old interests that were not we did not seek to condemn unlike the this is tried for serious case we have no interest in gaining their lease but they were named because they had an interest in property that was being condemn so they're in a little different position here than the property owners and that's going to have to be sorted out in answer to your question and justice coming hams question the legislature has provided whether we agree or disagree with them that there's an unconditional they take possession and council didn't want me answering family just right as i said to answer it for him was the answer is no they did not take possession judge white never found they took possession that's ever been an issue until a few minutes ago they information and appraisals and with the assistance of their respective legal counsel being fully informed of all of their rights under the law mr o'toole signed this agreement you asked who drafted it he we had no right to abandon they could have we would not have been here today and the village we believe has the right to walk away from this there's no time element in if there's a problem with that property owners have to petition the legislat