was finding that my clients were stopped ok from asserting a judgment against the newmans because my clients had accepted grants from the me with the and allow them to occupy the property i'm asking this court to party complaint against people's national bank they serviced quite of the claim that the lease was not assigned to meet ups and therefore the court was in error when she stated and as part of her conclusion that my clients were stopped there then assignment of the lease the second reason is that the court i believe relied on the limited some of the limited facts in the kentucky fried chicken case that were site that was the in national bank person kentucky fried chicken  southern california case in which the cour extracted a couple of principles of landlord tenant law that said that a sign of a lease he releases the original resi from the lease if it's from their lease agreement and i think the argument that the newman's or maybe his might claim to be the enticing a sign of provision in the contract but all it does is prevent me from complaining about the assignment don't believe there's surely any evidence in the record that shows that there's no testimony or affidavit that says that but also because they allowed the the media to just compile a property that was in evidence that my client that's clear intent that my client is releasing the newmans from liability on the lease and it's my position or mess the court to find that there's not enough evidence to read through to constitute a release you need an additional factors additional i'll say extreme factors like the ones in the individually nothing to a meet on nothing to new group ok to the newmans directly and they turned around centers letters to the bank people national banks and the see your allocation under the you know the october seventeenth agreement you paid switch obviously they did not present a second demand letter to the new friends this is all part of my cadence and claim which they again they sent to the bank my clients didn't get paid and i followed the lawsuit to collect fifteen thousand dollars in rent in this case so i was the dog sold their corporate stock to illegal foods they would sell the assets of their business they sold their corporate stock well that would and that was in a new group being renewed we was only occupying my client's property as part of the lease agreement with the wounds so really change there was property which was their groper ration and that should have been released but obviously not so because for the next floor five years the new ms paid rent to my client and more importantly in october seventeenth two thousand and one agreement they made clear that they wanted the bank to make sure my clients got paid the rant because they were on the hook personally for the when she read that paragraph in that agreement you'll see that it specifically says that  at those opinions and come to the conclusion that i am which is also adopted by the only one practiced section the landlord tenant wall that those rules apply to day those principles that in the sign or a lease is not released when  they sign a lease or not release from their original obligation unless there's a clear intent either by written document or clear actions by a landlord to sole released them and for those reasons i'm asking this court to reverse the trial court  release of the newness from their written obligation under the lease agreement now again i want to make clear to the court that i'm not trying to recover two times from my client i have a judgment against people's national bank which i believe is a proper judgment because they did agree to pay client's along with people's national bank because of the agreement they reached with people's national bank and i don't believe that there it's all from liability so i'm asking the court today to reverse that summary judgment and would meet somebody judgment against the newmans or alternatively the court so we could have a hearing on these other issues whether there was truly a release in this case thank you build the pleadings they did in the recent back if you look at their brief they acknowledge that new group became the occupant of the building so so god i do not believe that there was anything issue a back that was presented to the trial court or raised with your your lease obligation to this landlord that maybe ten more years because that's what all my law sets i don't believe that's what all my law says the only one practice has it wrong that is if the law has changed because they follow the