so i'd like to address that first i think first and foremost the point that i really want to emphasize here is that despite the use of the term tax rebate this really doesn't that rebates at issue in this case do with the county level and the treasurer and the overpayment what happened was is that in two thousand and ten it's a two thousand and ten tax year those taxes were paid in two thousand and eleven in two thousand and twelve after the taxes had been collected by the collector right the money to the county the city did have to repay some money to the county but that had nothing to do with the rebates that the city issued in this case or not because the city or the city and many the city had been doing this rebate program for eleven consecutive years without any sort of overpayment they decided to do it a twelfth year when they had their budget they made this budget and they decided we're going to do it again if you if you take a look at the rebate form and it does say on the top of that form the city's proud do announce that we're going to be doing it for the twelfth year in a row so the city raising this argument that well we got this and this money in error from cook county and we had to pay it back that's the only reason for these rebates and that's that's just that's not true they had been doing this for for eleven consecutive years so this isn't a case where the city got a windfall and sat where this money come from let's pay it forward to our citizens this is a case where the city routine lee year after year after year had money that had come from that date when they had gotten it from the normal tax levy had decided to reapportion it to their residence the differences and this is where this case really this is the crux of this case when the city had this overpayment and from the county they decided you know what we're not going to we're not going to try to find a way to pay this back we're just going to take the rebate money that we've been giving out for eleven consecutive years and we're not going to pay the twelfth year we're going to take it from our residents and we're going to give it to county and that is precisely what the fifth amendment and the bill of rights that we circle back though to the abstention issue yes you seem to be saying to us that this has nothing to do with taxes the ordinance those who city wants to minimize the homeowners property tax burden and soar going to provide for a property tax rebate to property tax payers who owned willingness within the city or is th taxes that were paid in this case but like i said this ordinance was not pass until april two thousand and twelve that the tax assessment was made in two thousand and ten paid in two thousand and eleven so this isn't a situation where the said we are going to reduce our tax lien or we are going to change the assessment and some manner and the citizens had some ability to say oh no there are this this tax assessment was incorrect in this case what happened is that the city said after it had already collected the taxes are ready after everything after all the counting had been done it just decided to give a gratuitous benefit back that was just tied in some way that they just going to abstain because states should be allowed to let me try to get history can you point me to language in those decisions that supports the distinction you're asking us to draw i understand there are some factual differences order state and local governments particularly local governments really to provide tax refunds or rebates at the request of taxpayers roth one of the one of the things that the four points to as to why the exception to the abstention doctrine does not apply is because there were options with the county board of review and the property tax appeal board that the taxpayer the plaintiff in that case could have used what i'm saying is and that in this case i understand a factual issue but had the residents here gone to the review board the review may not be available why not just go to state court because even in state court there was no issue with the amount that was assessed the assessment no one's disputing what the assessment was and no one is disputing that the amount they paid was some sort of overpayment they paid exactly what they owed there was no issue there the issue is that after that was collected and later down the line after it the money had changed hands that then the city did not do something that they promised the did so if they want what i want to state court on a tax basis where the well that that's if you want to get into the issue of the state court remedies and i'm happy to but i think that's central to the abstention factor well the exception is if those room of these are not plain adequate and complete i haven't heard anything indicating yet that there are not plain adequate and complete remedies in state courts for the claims that you're making the the plain adequate and a complete remedy is that they talk about in those cases specifically because they talk about the ability to go to the border review and the property tax review board those half those pertain to what the challenges it is on the assessment once you get to it i understand that that there isn't the of century doctrine applies to tax disputes couched in  eighty three but what i'm saying is that that that's not the case here but the issue is is that there is no tax dispute here no one's disputing anything that was paid and so that the normal issues of the state court r me please the court my critic can be half of the city of country club hills the main reason we're here today is because because bell wants the federal court to find that the city is required to pay tax rebate has already decided it are not in the financial the financial interest of the city to pay she claims that the failure to pay out in these tax rebates under the now repealed tax rebate ordinance violated her constitutional rights and we argued in judges able agreed with us that this this claim does not affect any vested rights that would but there were there was no best of writing a tax rebate that she claimed she had a best right to and that she had state court remedies available to her that she never pursued that brings us to the the comedy in abstention doctrine issues that the court directed us to appropriately so because they are very political in this case the this is clearly a taxation issue plaintiffs are appellant is clearly asking us asking the court to make a finding that would direct how the city can control its tax income its tax rebates its ability to texas citizens it's one of the most fundamental rights of the local government as to how to texas and the fair assessment capper of the high cases they did all address texas essman issues but they went on to to state that the federal government the federal court should keep its hand out of any sort of issues involving taxes as far as you know sapelo these and state government goes that's clearly what we have in this case plaintiff clearly has state remedies available also says that the court can raise the county an abstention doctrine on its own accord which it did in this case so i think the issue is appropriately before your honor's today and as i said this is unquestionably an action that attempts to limit the city's ability to tax as a sees fit any order requiring the city to pay the tax rebates would directly interfere with the city's ability to tax and control its finances and you know it one of the the primary issues it's kind of in skirted around here is if the court directed the city to pay on these tax rebates it's going to have to compensate for that money somehow and that would be through further taxation which is that the general way that municipality raises income so if there's there's a potential for an increase in taxes or cut in the city's essential services all sorts of things that would negatively impact the residents if there's any question as to whether or not the city can offer a tax rebate to its citizens that's best left to the city it was ultimately determined that that tax rebate ordinance was not in the best interest of the city and it was repealed out through two separate ordinances as we address and so on the abstention issue what if they hadn't called different issue but in this case i mean they did refer to it that tax issue is intimately intertwined in the the ordinance language the rebate application language you know it in that case that maybe outside of the abstention doctrine because it made me not directly affects the taxation ability but i still think an argument could be made under the fair assessment i don't care for cases that it does it is a request from the federal courts to step in and control how the city whatever and the case law that that we've cited in our briefs shows that you know contractual issues are somewhat different than this issue which is as appellants council referred to repeatedly this was a gratuitous benefit offered by the city they weren't compelled to offer this benefit nothing required them to offer this benefit no one contested the the assessment of taxes for the years that were affected here this was a gratuitous offer by the city and they were certainly in there the rounds repeal that  offer as we noted in the briefs which we got into the vested rights issues exclusively but i feel if the court finds a county an abstention applies here we're not even going to get to the vested rights issue because that would dispose of the matter in federal court but as far as the vest rights issues i did want to touch upon those in a brief because this was a gratuitous offer by the city this this does not amount to something that could be considered a vested rights and something that when it could cripple claim deprive her of some constitutional right here this was something that was an act that through legislation in the the tax rebate ordinance it was repealed through a repeal ordinance appropriately so and it was never anything that she had title to that she had some sort of that she owned it this was this was a gratuitous benefit that she hadn't expected to see and and did not ever amount to way out of vested right that would bring it under the constitution and as i discussed out having the the courts interfere with the city's ability to control its tax it's tax money and it's financial issues would that it would have would significantly harm the city this is not if the court required them to pay on this tax rebate that they determined was not in their best financial interest they would it would have a significantly detrimental impact temple the city and its citizens and as far as the  taxes the court found that there was no vested rights in tax refunds and that is the law that it should be applied in the this case again this was a discretionary act by the city had nothing compel them to have to to offer these rebates and they were certainly free to repeal it as they saw fit but i will say that you know until plaintiff had the check in her hand from the tax refund she did not have any sort of right or title to this tax rebate and at no point did she thank you so if your honour's would like i could i could continue to delve into the abstention issue but i would like to touch on the merits of the case just briefly i do think that the briefs speak for themselves say i think that it's very clear that a lot of the law that cited by the city is not really applicable here the big distinction that i would like to point out that i do that we took great lengths to try to explain in the briefing on was this difference between vested rights versus expectation rights versus contingent rights that are outlined in the peer assault case here there we're not dealing with a situation where there is some sort of nebulous this may happen in the future this may you don't you're entitled to the continuation of a particular statute here the mandatory language of the statute fix these residents rights to their rebates they had the ability they submitted their claims everything all the predicates all the conditions precedent had been completed at the time that they submitted these things and and they were entitled factually because of their circumstances to the rebates under the ordinance at that time the mastery the the label vested or non vested frankly seems to me a lot more like a conclusion and helpful in a little tool you talked in your brief about the land graph case with respect to retrospective or retroactive ordinance so there's a there's a cup all issues there that i'd i'd like to address that the first one is as far as the cases that deal with how a right vasant and how the right comes to be fixed and i think that's what we're  getting into a fixed right the cameras case which is which is from illinois the national wildlife case and the abraded case among others there is no over lions element that ever comes into play in those cases  some of the cases there is some reliance but in other cases there is not even in a case the single in ski case which they did find that off future benefits to a pension was not those rights were invested they didn't mention that the contributions that were already made to the to the fund were vested even though they were wrong question le so i don't think that there is any reliance element here i was trying to follow up on your brief your argument about retroactive legislation ok do you  reliance that the supreme court talked about inland graf super not play a role here reliance does not i don't think in land graph or the cases cited in the brief that reliance necessarily means some sort of detrimental reliance that it that it may in some sort of and contract law or some other thing i think reliance is that a person has a a right to something that they can rely on what the government's us at a certain point we're going to get there in the wild because that the cases all the cases that have to deal with vested rights and with whether a right is fixed at a point of time have to deal with the fact that at a certain point the rights are fixed and so reliance in that contact context is that a person can rely on the fact that their rights have been fixed at that they can rely on that particular right and receiving that benefit now as far as and the other issue on on reliance is that there is some detriment here even if the like the city wants to argue that these people if this ordinance were never in past there would have been a difference because they would have received anything anyways here because the law makes clear that these rebates became their property and so the fact that the city did not do anything and did not pay out the money is a detriment to the citizens it's a complete taking of their property and so that is also a detriment here in the city and the citizens did rely on that benefit coming through my time is up i think the court