factual situation was presented by way of affidavits the decision was made on cross motions for summary judgment there really is no issue as to the facts the question is whether knife a long term lease produced the defendant long after had been entered into by the pastor of the church was in force under the statute of frauds the first position that the defendant took was that she had actual authority and unless this court declares that there is such a proposition of law contrary to what i've been able to find the pastor of a church is no different than any other agent has the delegated authority and there is no pretense of even any actual authority for nowi roads in this instance as pastor the church to execute manner into long term leases contrary to the provisions of the statute of frauds i think to me that when it's just as plain as can be even though the defendant continues to urge and claim that the pastor the church has and short of actual court nobody denies that there was a lease of some sort of this billboard on the church property the country the affidavits filed by to defend and if you look back in time the original lease was entered into by a company called imperial it was for one year it was also signed by nearly rhodes purportedly as the owner of the property but it was for one year the only in this year of any action and it really was the trial court seized upon was the acceptance of payments over a long period of time some thirteen years periodic payments princely monthly payments for the lease of this billboard there is a suggestion that there's been some sort of reliance on trying to reach some sort of stop the issue which the  year but a delegation of authority has to be in writing likewise there was no such delegation of authority and there's no question but that she required it vote of the congregation of at least two thirds of the membership present at a quorum at a meeting called for the purpose of proving such a contract so the question then becomes did the church engage in any kind of conduct which would give the defendant any reasonable basis to believe that she had some sort of authority and the only thing anybody can point to is acceptance of periodic payments over a long period of time and it wasn't until there was this letter issued in two thousand and seven saying we exercise our authority under the contract we have with  extend this lease for an additional fifteen year period that an inquiry was made by someone at the church and they produced the contract which was signed by the previous pastor saying that they're in this contract intervention in two thousand  billboard and saying we've made a huge investment and that's wrong for a couple reasons number one if you go back and look at the original least they purchased from imperial it was just for a one year period renewable and you totally consistent with a month to month or any obese or periodic lease which not you know which doesn't come under the statute of frauds the second reason is it itself refers to an existing problem is i think that the defendant itself was put upon some sort of duty of a fiery when they acquired this lease it would have been such a simple matter and certainly you know had they been advised by counsel  understood what he or she was doing it would have said look at this in a stop a certificate from each of the owners saying this is what the lease is this is what you wanted their current owner name it and all those kinds of things are put upon some sort of a duty of inquiry and there's visible periodic payments are coming in the question is can they then produce a document signed by somebody was never authorized by the congregation to say we can now claim a fifteen year lease on that billboard and we're going to lock  in you know for that period of time that's the issue that falls within the statute of frauds clearly there has to be a writing not only has to be writing but if there's a delegation of authority itself must be in such a document signed by an agency agent must also be authorized in writing as we point out in the brief even a spouse has to have a delegation of authority in writing to bind the spouse to such an interest in signed a new contract this change payments for sixteen hundred dollars per annum one check for here to twelve hundred eighty three dollars thirty percent payments so sure it was getting a different amount of check they also got twenty two hundred a year in there as income as opposed to six thousand dollars per year so they might have a better argument have had the terms not changed regardless i don't know they  very good art but given the situation the terms changed in two thousand and four and they accepted forty eight more payments after that it seems to me and i'd contention that they didn't know that there was a new say yes we don't like the terms of it and we didn't we didn't do our what we as a board checked out what she did and why these terms change and so therefore we want to undo what we've been doing for the last seventeen years i think that's a tough position for them to take if this isn't a situation where the where the church came in and said we wanted to know why the terms change in two thousand  which is not inconsistent with the month a month lease you know and if you look at the winnings themselves the defendant acknowledges that it was not in till the letter was sent the e that an inquiry was made by the church on what basis are you making this claim what lease that they actually then produced that and that's admitted in the wee hours so it wasn't until two thousand and seven that there was any actual knowledge of anything other than this billboard out there for which they were getting my fee payments and there was now a claim that there was a binding contract that would extend that lease of that billboard for another fifteen year period which is