attorneys that would do no work that would be surplus watch and somebody might say well no it doesn't do surplusage it is being very clear to call out a particular type of fee attorney fees so that there is no attorneys fees as we all know equally undisputed is that the section never uses the word experts or consultants or experts or consultants feed it had the party intended to provide quick and shifting of of expert witness speed and that was because the same inference that i just described earlier in response to our questions was equally plausible there although the expertise expended by the thousands may have been necessary and reasonable that out even though the statute did not provide for the word expert this district court and on that point the district court acknowledged the wheeler case but i just i like that quote outside non legal consultants and experts are traditionally not regarded as a turn key however essential their services may be to the successful preparation and trial of the complicated and therefore may not be recover in the middle of that provision the percents begin except it's a except that otherwise provided in this agreement each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys and other consultants fees and expense so what that does in our view under the p s a section a that is really just memorializing the american rule that the parties will pay for will shoulder will bear the costs of their own attorneys and their own consultants unless this court it's other companies believe they had a contractual right to reimbursement of their fee they had an obligation to file a motion to recover them by failing to do so the seller companies waived their claim to reimbursement but as noted in the but the underlying contract with the fee shifting provision and therefore had no right to reimbursement but it's the according knowledge that with a very straightforward analysis and we believe that straightforward analysis applies here the seller selling believe the district court's holding would represent a sweeping revision of the law it would upset the settled expectation that parties bear their own attorneys absent a clear unequivocal contract saying otherwise and perhaps worst we think the rule could be abused in future cases where quote aligned litigants could make interest a agreements between about the legal fees that would unilaterally expand obligations of the opposing party but not increase their equally impersonal overfeed that did not meet one or both of these contractual acquirements yes thank you your honor is good morning and made please the court colorado you for apple use stephen sandler settlers crossing washington park estates and bovard development our development as mr sanders companies or the companies your auditors this appeal arises out of a decade long plus dispute that began when as this court concluded three years ago when our breached a real estate agreement with the companies in bad faith and then sued them and mr sandler who had guaranteed the company's obligations to lend our after years of litigation this in the guarantee contracts that he had entered into with when are the district court properly awarded mr sale or those fees your honor based on its findings one that mr sandler was a prevailing party in the lawsuit brought fees is not responsive to the question of the meaning of reasonable attorney fees rather it is circular mr sandler has a right to those fees precisely because they are reasonable under the guarantees we submitted this year court's ruling follows from the plain language of the provision the undisputed record and mr sanders guarantee of his company's obligations are there would be writing on behalf of both the companies on the one hand and i saw on the other under the same agreement but the district court found that that was acceptable based on the that all those accompanied the vaulted on the i started loan which otherwise affected an assignment of their rights under the purchase agreement because that the fall in disputed lead was caused the breach employing maryland contract principals and finding a fair and reasonable interpretation of the purchase agreement under those facts would allow the companies to recover fees on their own under that purchase agreement we submitted the fact inclusion is correct your honor but again we believe that and we know that the district court that when our soon mr sandler under the guarantees or that mr sanders of prevailing party in that lawsuit moreover as mr stanley's trial counsel it tested below in the district court then your auditors this can be found in joint appendix page four of two mr stanley did not see any b s not quote attributable to the claims against him on quote including  spent board example on his company's counter claims against len are to be clear mr stanwood did not see these were spent on the counter claims nor did the district court award them fees and costs experts were essential to the trial below it was a battle of experts i stars expertise and costs are clearly compatible with the broad dues are paid provision at issue here and the court in berkeley traced that between parties in this case states that the plaintiffs may recover quote cost but doesn't provide for the recovery of experts although the entry fee has expanded by the plaintiffs may have been necessary and rea including attorney fees expertise and court costs that's what gets agreement lacks and that's why the decision should be reversed as to the question about how good it manic toyota that your honor asked we believe that case is fee shifting provision that mr rabbit said that mr samaras does not see any reimbursement for fees incurred on behalf of the seller companies or for claims that were not the subject of the court the court will take a brief break before hearing the next case