bellwood vs american national bank and trust is a special statutory proceeding its procedures regulated by statute is not government you could buy after pleading or practiced by the common law in the case of for the value of the property was not determined until may of two thousand and seven and the p b c did not have the award until july sixteenth two thousand and seven therefore the date of the taking under the law was sixteenth of two thousand and seven also clearly establishing illinois was the fact that the government entity does not have to purchase the property even after the value is determined but to it actually takes the property i pay for i he received that a jury award of one million three hundred twenty two thousand three hundred eighty three dollars for that for its rich cover just lost profits as if it would have been able to operate its business it tighter term of its lease but right ok going to be at your argument from a minute ago it should have been brought up yet there is evidence about the value of the lease how could it not have been brought up in a prior warning at least at that time at least that time and that when the building was not repaired by the terms of the lease if it was repaired the lease ended the other site i get at the lease continued until may of two thousand and twelve the the lease with expired nobody argues even that it was the lease was there after may twelfth two thousand and seven and when they found it was taken the only party with with a estate and the only part with was the fact that the lease was expired and if the lease expires there's no other evidence required because only the parties that have an estate and property in title to receive an award the only evidence required to our us attorneys had at least two piece of property he terminated the lease after the kind of h was filed but before the award was i determined they had paid and the supreme court  as yes well beat me yet the bonus value let's say the property was never damaged the bonus value was below market leases realize the value that it's  four and he may file suit and received all the lost profits they received the value of their there but the below market read as lost profits just says they would have had they been that well they think they're basically reimbursed because we make they sued and then we just they received all their lost profits and the rent they paid was a factor in that if they had paid that ninety nine thousand dollars less in rent condemnation was not repaired therefore earth felt that they should be get something but in order to apportion some doesn't there need to be some kind of finding that one has in that state yes but i said there was no seven the lease on its face expires did your client pay rent after that date he did not show ok with you didn't he so i think judge there's some some key points that we need to focus in here which your honour's brought up during mr cloete a's argument number one the lease doesn't go away just because there's a condemnation case the lease has to be honored because it's in place it is part and parcel of the bundle of rights that are composed of that that property there's owner's rights and there's interested parties rights such as tenants that's a statutory argue that that in the alternative that once once the least expired on that may twelfth two thousand and seven date he was still her lover tended over tennessee's require notice of termination there is absolutely no testimony that mr yellen is the landlord ever provided any notice of him and her mission it that's true but there's a paragraph eleven was put into the at least written into lease written by repair the premises within the said sign or the building containing the premises shall have been wholly destroyed the term hereby created shall cease and on them if premises are being repaired or rent a basis for the out the cash register but after that they had no occupancy of the building they were outside not inside correct your outer again and so by the terms of this is in reading the language that is here i don't know that church i'm not a construction person but i think that's probably fair because there was certainly some carry over time in consulting with the insurance adjuster consulting with the construction people that all came out in sworn testimony at the evidentiary hearing because we had to interpret this provision but the sixty days it's fired and so it's well that's i think there's i'm talking about fryer to me well i think you hit it and i think that that goes to the were discussions going on there was plans there was testimony to that effect by our clients and also by mr mr yellen but here's what i had a connection to for specific he here's here's the point church if this cut my client was involved in prior condemnations where i represented them they no that the king condemning body can walk away at any time this is this was a very successful stor they'd they really wanted to open up there's testimony that mr yellen wanted to fight the condemnation he wanted to open up oh it was it was a good paying tenant he he testified to that so at any time this was not a quick take situation this case went on for five years in court before there was a jury verdict after the jury verdict was which was a substantial jury verdict the city could have decided not to pay and still could have abandoned so there was an interest on our part to find out if in fact wasn't a total billing that was demolished about a fourth of the building was affected so you know it could it could have i don't know if it could have been done in sixty days but it it certainly could have been done you know within a yesterday if i may point out one of the things that i think is very very important on this whole issue of the negligence issue and this appears in naam in the core of the trial court's decision on page three this is the second memorandum decision and order that was issued on august twenty ninth two thousand and eleven and son page three in the quote refers to the first quarter was entered by  denied that set off well if it if they were if they if you were to allow them to swear to be remanded and they were allowed to bring in all this testimony regarding the effect of the company negligence case here on the condemnation case i mean essentially we already have rescued a kind of from the the judge that was handling the negligence case that it's in that it doesn't apply at all that there's no there's no tie in between the any negligence claim and the condemnation case there's no and not say we disagree with our supreme court case of a year ago it followed laws and settle for over a century this is a unique situation judge i hear that i mean every day i can't tell you how often i hear from wires this is unique in the jury trial i understand what's think that's a do with my question of how can we write this to say that people who we know these expires can still get money from underneath allocation made after the taking  and action taken by the landlord to to repair that to actually meet with all the truth all that is true in that the value at the time the valuation was three hundred eighty thousand dollars on behalf your client he had a value to time why doesn't that extinguish upon the lease extinguishing the first of all because there was a jury verdict that included it and secondly we never got the use or enjoyment if i had totally agreed judge that if we had been able to remain es is there in place to cover outside incidents and that's exactly what happened yes there was this something of a condemnation case but the lease is in place to deal with outside incidents that occur and just because there's a the last extension occurred in may of two thousand and two really the case was filed in february of two thousand and two so we had our final option could be exercised in may of two thousand and two that was exercise we had this forty months left ok and because we had this forty months left and we were able to use and enjoy the property that's how the the appraiser looked at it that unexpired term had value to it if they hadn't gone forward and repaired the facility we would have had the use and enjoyment and there would have been no claim at the at the terminations but because the lease should control because the judge heard all the evidence that it did control then it then the tenant then the appraiser was able to rule that in fact there was a police hold value that you see again i client i there's testimony that our client continued to to interact we there over a three year period after the so called terminate the terminations period we enter we got we we took requests from a landlord over that period of time we were we were hoping that that that that the repair would go forward i mean but you knew it but had the steps that had to be taken and you're under  holdover tenancy is a year and it could be month to month but it could be it could be month to month right and that's at the option of the landlord arm i think that is of the lease was three hundred eighty thousand dollars and his result of that neander is zero debt money and not yelling yes but at the end of the day since the check wasn't cut the money wasn't deposited by the  public works commission until months of shortly after leases expire and the argument is shouldn't even girl still get that money is found by the jury as opposed to mr yellin who is never under any theory entitled to the three hundred that nobody found that yellen deserves the three hundred eighty thousand dollars right there was money that should have gone to the end the jury did not specifically make that finding but the the appraiser for mr yell have been able to to make on the property if they continue to operate from the date of the carriage ing for the remainder of their lease and that's a heck of a lot of use of a drug that one point three million over one point three million dollars the issue is when the property is taken who have the states and indeed the property and also under the rock evidence of a double recovery may be introduced that any time even after the