longer a part of the us they've had their matter of free fall all this case really about at this point is the court not addressing the question of attorney fees we have a contract here that clearly call for attorney and that's what this is about the defendant has as argued basically that all we got was what their client had attorney fees there was no finding high court if mr hooper breached anything but there was a finding that the defendant was impartial breach of his contract which is why the court did award us give the money to but mr new actually left a breach of this contract and that is the only portion where attorney fees really can be awarded there's no provision in here for anybody getting attorney party regarding the question of whether there was a reduce those fees based upon the reasonable list of the fees and selves so that would incur how many hours you spent on the case it would incur how much money you're charging per hour in this case the court had already approved what they'd already approved earlier in the case in addition to the total number of hours i was requesting was less than forty five hours that included filing a complaint twelve court hearings u prevailing party if there's a breach and it's not just and the interesting thing here has had new blowout according to the terms of this contract has been would not have been a title the court to enforce the contract that says that if you are in breach and the other side prove separate the breaching party has to pay the attorney fees and we clearly have a judgment  have to speak up for me to to begin with i think it be helpful for the court if we went through just a week quick review of what the facts are and that gave rise to the the parties entered into a real estate purchase contract and paypal two thousand and five they had a closing upon a walkthrough on may tenth of two thousand and ten and pippin's continued to live in the property until may twenty pippins moved out eighteen days after closing the contract provided new three days conduct a reinspection provide written notice to pippin's of any alleged damage that evidence that was before the trial court was that this was not done at all on the evidence that was before the trial court was that the only work that was agreed to be done was the grouting and the grading word and that hip and that actually sent multiple letters to news saying  it was what i couldn't do the grading because i want the soil conditions were let me know when i can come back out there and you write to which noob never responded he did send the pippins and asked me to have the grading done by to recover the fifteen hundred dollars that pippins admitted he was responsible for and i tried to do work for multiple times sent to letters to the board into the findings of the court so that it does not seem that new can be service is performed the time spent on each action and the dates that the service was performed in the record in this case what we have our time entries that are bereft of any detail as to the services before any parents brief you can see how he has that case we presented with the proposition of should they be denied their thirteen thousand dollars in attorney's fees in that case because the mechanic's lien claimant was able to recover nine hundred thirty eight dollars and the court concluded that simply because the landlord the landlord became concerned that there was environmental contamination and other issues that could give rise to its own personal liability so it found a lawsuit against the gas station to allege that they were in violation of environmental remediation cleanup requirements of the contract amongst other things the environmental remediation claims were found by a court to be the substantive issues in the case and so with respect to his view of the time and trees that were submitted had dates amounts of time not the services provide so the court was entirely unable to even give them adequate  as you can tell for the record and put it in their brief and when this trial started it was six thousand eight or sixty four dollars and forty chips left in this it's just more pointed out just as more pointed out earlier now that's where that had nothing to do with the final walk around and in the middle of her second page of her ruling she said there is no evidence before the court that new great spectator premises are provided any notice of damage to the premises the bit that's the part we would be appealing if we had a court reporter because if you look at the court record you'll see one of the people we put up on the stand was julian pay who was the re that's why we don't we're not appealing that but i'm just saying that's part of our problem the court took so long ruling on this little simple case that clearly on page one she forgot what the issues were in the case because she thought it was just what was in the