court made binding and holding that the court had broad discretionary powers were fees after reading and the defendant not being satisfied with her victory filed a petition for an additional twenty six thousand dollars of attorney's fees the plaintiff responded with a number of things one of them was asking the court to consider the actual decision of this court  defendant's position when they got the trial court in the first instance to augment the award of the fees from seven thousand to twenty thousand by saying that the trial court had no discretion except toward all the fees that were  requested in each of the time entries asked for by the parties that was their position in the trial court in first instance they were actually asking for twenty six thousand and then also in the trial court did augment the the original award which even originally found  seven thousand for a deck action and two thousand for the forcible and been detained it was sufficient was satisfactory and i think but the defendant prevailed on the track court saying that you know he had to association board in august of two thousand and nine where as we put it in the free for the ownership shannon szymanski and the buyer susan irwin explained their purchase contract which was determined to be a contract for deed and not a rental agreement the three year time limit on renting was not a factor they were advised to get their contract clarified susan irwin intends on up painting financing and purchasing the property outright that was newly found evidence to corroborate what administrative court trying to get a clarification is whether the prohibition on renting a condo for more than three years applied in this case and all the parties agreed there was a contract for each council but without exchanging evidence have to do  that by saying that there's a special appeal provision under a grant or denial of relief under to vote you know one in this case the court trial court just struck the two fourteen zero one and didn't even hear it you have no  well i hope was never a clear issue the trial court to decide initially in this court didn't reverse them saying that look i can look within the four corners and i can declare it to be a lease with an option purchase herself represented to be a contract for deed beyond the four corners of it should have been considered first of all maybe on the merits of what the contract actually was but certainly with respect to an award a feat because she's the one who drew the contract in the first instance and i think mr justice appleton's special concurrence in the senate in the first case suggested look this was a pretty simple deck action  and she's the one that caused all this because she drew a dreadful contract to begin with and necessitated all the litigation so for both of those reasons i think the those things should have been considered by the trap court i had knowledge absent this court saying look we were wrong in affirming the trial court in first case or the trial court was wrong and not considering granting the two fourteen zero one we're stuck with a lease for with an option to purchase and it brings us to the second issue which the trial court had to consider the two fourteen zero one supported by affidavit that no warrant to just strike you have either grad or deny relief you didn't do that so the first instance we suggested has to be reversed and sent back  concluded once in the title right next to the word and then i do that again agreement from they say agreement from lips the only way you can determine this is a contract for deed is if you read half of the first sentence conduct of the attorney and whether they were official in the administration of the state well to read the argument made in this particular briefing by the appoint essentially say well the faith is one of those things you need to consider on the award of attorney's  so stated in her affidavit they had appeared before the condo board but it wasn't until after this case was remanded that she was never actually able to get the the the minutes themselves and have them authenticated by and to corroborate her earlier test if you explain why that was the case because there had been no discovery or well yeah i think i can explain it it's because the previous president was a blind person and he couldn't find the records until which me then i presented to the court as crappy bevan's secondly council suggest a judge that had a hearing there was no hearing except on the motion a motion to strike and to dismiss and judge that this documentary is very simple instance that because of the nature of the case the amount of the fees ought to have been as was originally decided by the court the five thousand and the two thousand as a max and i relied also on mr justice appleton suggestion in his special concurrence that look this was a relatively simple case and the court should have considered the fact that the defendant support drafting of the agreement necessitate the the litigation and therefore what's really happening is she's being rewarded for her own indolence and folly in drawing her contract without the assistance of counsel and we're all here because of what she did