treasurer was incorrect and in affixing a number but i'm arguing that if this court files that it is a fixture that's still the treasurer has incorrect because you both affects pin number four it should have fallen under the zero one zero pin number and that tax should have been increased because it was an improvement upon that brand just like the so are you representing your coin or are you representing people who have cellular phone tie represent why it and what is it if you were to prevail would happen in this case forget about what will that it is a fixture but that the treasurer should not assign a separate him number to fixtures located on real estate my client gets the real estate attached purchaser and he'd prepare meals on this idea then they'll never be the opportunity for him to get that unlikely thing that i talked about i e a real windfall to give the property and a tower and a house all because of a taxi i mean it almost seems counter intuitive that he wants us to find zero one zero hit pay the taxes on zero one six because there was an assessment while the assessment was alliance communication company and the earlier green it was that if there's any because they still were the owner of that property and i think it mentions in the at least they're the only property it mentions on the property record part of their own property so they were responsible for paying whatever tax was assessed on that property but instead they did not so that was only a partial redemption or partial payment on the taxes so certainly i can i can throw out of this for the fact that the procedure that would buy them in filing a motion to dismiss was is a permanent fixture in the home or in that house at that point time if it has enhanced the value of that business or that home then the county officials are entitled to go in and increase the tax they don't assign a separate him her for that purpose and say well that's a picture we're going to tax that separate from the real estate in the bill they and the derived and everything else  thing the other speculation the owner is the voter within that town you raise taxes here she's like you've got a cellular phone company here cable phone company and this hypothetical doesn't have  as if i want to know where the power people are because it seems to me that they're the ones who are being unfairly treated but your perspective and instead provide money for the various counties they they are working for their efforts by receiving pensions which employees have earned if there is no redemption then but there was no basis on law or fact for my client file titian which include the certificate number for the grown and the certificate number for the so there are two different pin numbers i'm interested to hear mr moore slim's statement that evidently what he is seeking here on behalf of his client is a refund of the taxes he paid on this power that's not anything that was ever brought up in the trial  never should have been involved labyrinthine of provisions of the tax code that nobody wants to know anything about tax purchasers and there are very few attorneys become well versed in that but i think the general practice is for circuit courts to rely on the petitioners to tell them the truth and have you notified everybody you should yes i have you done what you should yes i have in this case mr ballenger betrayed his trust betrayed the trust he put on his verified petition that he had off the taxes on partial one o you leave a note in the record that was written by him after the petition was typed up i don't know if it's an afterthought we have no evidence of why it about that way investigated ahead of time or even looked at the listing of the properties being sold that so you'll get said improvements on the first client he was certainly under notice of what he was purchas you know in these taxi situations it's different from most litigation you don't have a summons to share living summons here saying you have to answer within thirty days we have certified mail notice we have maybe the sheriff delivering a take notice get your section certified mail had my client not been particularly alert she would not now own her home the court would have said mr ballenger have you done for every you're supposed to yes i have he gets a taxi to her house in four point five eight she happened to be very alert she looked at those notices saw that her parcel number had been edited i think that's something most property owners would not do most property owners quite frankly as a part of the whole problem is i think they have gone broke and somebody else maybe has taken on their assets it's been difficult for us to find that out we had fact setting the record but we instituted forcible entry action against them to try what about do we need to even address resolve this issue of words real property you talk about of your brief is that better i think because i didn't hear your answer yes i think it does because mr ballenger makes  and also all building structures and improvements improvements is a pretty broad term i think it's important that there was no evidence presented by mr ballenger at the time of hearing cannot be considered a part of the real estate i guess and i would also point out that it one hundred thirty it presents a sort of a dichotomy says that the land real site is the land itself  therein and also all building structures and improvements as if it can be two separate things i think an important aspect of this is that at no point has mr ballenger been able to in the tax code or case that says that you cannot tax an improvement a structure with on real estate separately from the underlying land but what about the example i gave  real estate here owned by two separate parties and therefore it is appropriate to have two separate t consider this as a realistic improvement on the slight of that being the case i don't think it's appropriate to refer to this as personal property i think the underlying decision was made by the board county authorities that this would be real estate problem is by the taxes on the sons if you don't like the result don't drag my client in this required thousands of dollars of defense of property that she had already paid the taxes on the real if the real issue here is to have to defend their property when they've done everything they should not withstanding mr moore films claim that my client should have redeemed the taxes on the towers i suppose she would have the authority to do that  as far as the sanctions provisions are concerned your honor or your honors i think the trial court made it abundantly clear what his reasons were for imposing sanctions which were requested in our two six nineteen motion the there was no basis whatever in fact or law for driving my finding him to have to defend her property that she had paid the taxes on as a result of mr ballenger having presented quite but we have a situation here in which as i indicated earlier i think mr ballenger has trade the trust of the court that he in fact had not done what he under oath said he had done which was to buy the taxes on my client's property and because of  h he should be sanctioned for having done so i think that provision must be invoked in the situation to prevent persons in mr ballenger situation from falsifying their pleading and then seeking title to property they have no right to receive never pay the tax and take it away from a decent taxpaying citizen such as my own client so why super route from your response earlier that you don't know whether this is