attorney to handle that case in the p t o there is no dispute that assistant state's attorney has the same authority in court as does the state's attorney there's also dispute that the state's attorney's office has the exclusive authority to settle tax cases and there should be no dispute that a special assistant state's attorney has authority to settle a peterhead case because the p t have regulations provides specifically that especially appointed assistant state's attorney pita hearing on behalf of the county officials and they also provide that the parties may enter into settlement agreements so there's really no way that mr sure was not authorized to enter zelman agreement in this case in fac it judge adrian indicated that he certainly was authorized to sell for two thousand but not for future cases and the reason they gave that was that it would be unfair to the taxing districts who weren't there because they wouldn't know that there were other years besides two thousand and ten that could possibly be stuck on those tax and districts chose not to intervene like calhoun county did but more importantly the case was pretty well universal that  the state's attorney or assists a story in this case can sell tax cases without notice to or approval of any of the tax districts so whenever there is a settlement the safe return he has the authority to enter into the cell phone agreement without any input from the these property tax cases go on year to year basis every year you go to the board review every year you file a tax objection complaint why would we not want to allow the duplicate or the  the going to core so many times and spending all the time and money if we can get a settlement that is agreed to by all parties so if those reasons are ours clearly there was authority to sell for more than one year as far as the consideration issue around trousers kind of threw us a little bit of a curve ball on that one nobody has really raised this issue nobody has argued it but this one seems pretty simple when the party that brings the suit agrees to ce  st of all there was no identity of issues the issues in the motion to force the agreement in the p t o and the cause of action for of course would be in the calhoun county case fourteen t x seven are not identical concerning the amount to be paid and the acceptance of the agreement is settlement of the regime dispute that's what happened that's what you have to prove what you file a motion to enforce during the pending case you have won on the contrary when you pla soup to enforce the settlement agreement which is basically a super breach of contract you have to prove the existence of the contract performance by the plaintiff breach of the contract by the defendant and damages as a result pretty much standard am i going to stop this litigation and our way by presume or evidence and say ok we're done that's the issue there the issue is sued for a breach of contract is ok was there a contract to somebody breaches and the someone title to damages so it's it's not a matter of stopping the litigation and tell everybody ok you have to do what he said in front of me a few minutes ago you were going to do that that's when your and when you f wrong in a lawsuit that is that preserves all different elements of proof that's a different issue so there would not be identity identity issues from the p t have to the trial court it cannot be the basis of collateral stop and it would make sense to apply that to a motion for reversal of settlement agreement because the result is the same in either just of whether it's been granted her tonight if it's granted then the case is over and we know who won the so who wins but we know what the outcome is right there if it's denied then the course of no has no so agreement we go ahead proceed on exactly same thing in motion for summ judgment if some summary judgment granted the case over with that's a final disposition everybody goes home if it's too hard then everybody continues on the case so these two on these two proceedings if you will  additionally the denial of the motion to force was not essential to the final judgment the settlement agreement concerning multiple years two thousand and ten plus years following years into the future the final p t had decision only concern tax year two thousand and ten there was only evidence heard on tax year two thousand there was no ruling made on anything other than tax year two thousand and ten so the denial of  when my client purchased the property it had been all assessed as formal and even in the two thousand and ten p t o hearing the p t have ruled that all of the parcels that had corn soybeans were in on them were also to be assessed as farm so this this ruling actually went back is for the other ways could have been but plaintiff has the burden of proof is a de novo review by the trial or and even though the standard of proof is clear you busy evidence my question is what evidence is there in this record to show that any of this property any of these eighty four parcels it but there has never been any human habitation no houses nothing ever constructed on the property so that the every show that not only what i just said there's no development no one's ever lived there it's been the same ever  fact that there is a presumption that the assessment was done correctly and also on the fact that it is plateaued as a subdivision for some future development some time whenever that happen but we were both that presumption trial or i would submit to your r s ten fold with respect to the fourteen parcels that have corn soybeans on the testimony and stipulations established on these parcels for the relevant years there was either corn or soybeans planted cultivated taken out and been sold and nothing was ever done on either property other than that particular use begin the development of new buildings new houses and this fall squarely within the definition of farm in section one dish sixty which is property used solely for growing and harvesting the crux including but not limited to great now the defendants are trying to get out from under this definition in several ways st of all they rely on the fact that it was of the actual land owner slash taxpayer that was doing the work but it was rooted out to a tenant farmer will section one dish sixty doesn't say anything about that situation it doesn't say that it's only a farm if the land owner is doing the work it doesn't say it's not a farm if it's big if the work is being done by a tenant farmer so that as  think that certainly would be considered formally and i'm sure that lane is assessed as such they also rely on some language in the publication one hundred and twenty two from the department revenue the has to do with land being parsed smaller than five acres and are only being conventional farming going on on the property but the appellate court has actually rejected that specific argument in the can you keep order of review less than five acres and there's only conventional farming going on and the appellate court clearly ruled that that is not an authorized guideline by it to be put out by the department of revenue because it expands get another way to limit the definition of what is a farm so the statute doesn't say that there's any kind of acreage or activity limitation for what is considered to be a farm then the department of revenue went beyond what it was authorized to do in coming up with that particular guideline so the size of the parcels and what type of farming is being done is absolutely real trial court ruled that persons were not farm because crops were planted and harvested to control noxious weeds like johnson grass well again section one dish sixty which is our go to stash for the definition of a farm doesn't say anything about the purpose or reason for growing harvesting  agricultural use of the property so even if we were to determine that the purpose for which crops are grown harvested cetera is relevant and nice agricultural purpose according to our almost supreme court that how something is known it is the current use of it that controls whether something gets firmly in classification not the cases that i cited i believe the classification was industrial as opposed to residential they still say oh we don't care what the zoning is that's a separate issue what is the current use of the property that's the only thing that we look at and so therefore the fact that it might be zoned residential has nothing to do with whether it should be classified as resident as residential or farm for tax purposes and the same is true for the fact that around the parcels are marketed for sale possibly for future residential use the courts of him have held that it is the current use not the future intended use of the property that controls and in fact i think mr howard even testified at the trial that if somebody wants to buy one of those lots he doesn't care what they do with it if they want to build a house on it that's fine they don't that's fine too if they want to continue to farm that's fine but it is the current use the controls not what the owner of the subdivision intends to do with it as some future point in time now with respect to the other parcels the farm land and waste land and stash says that these types of for farmland shelvey defined according to u s census bureau definitions publication one hundred and twenty two on the very st page gives definitions of these four by the statute unlike the ones dealing with the five acre conventional farms that so it defines other farmland as one pasture woodland including wood loss and timber tracks well the testimony and the stipulations at the trial level off really indicate that these three different areas of the entire subdivision were substantially timber and it had always been that way i can howard so for that reason obviously the temperature x in the deer trail heels nest and fox run clearly are timber and clearly they are consider other farmland which is a type of farming so for those reasons the representing the plaintiff in this case and filed a complaint for review of assess with slash objection to assessment and then states journey charley birch contacted my office through the bill prosecutors in this we handled the appeal we briefed it the there was a motion in force that settlement agreement filed with the property tax people who work the property tax bill board the plane to enforce and when mr churkin indicates that  so my point in telling you all this and giving you the broader history of that is that was the plaintiff's opportunity to pursue review the plaintiff had the opportunity to pursue administrative review of the property tax appeal board's decision and the proper texas feel board's denial of their request to force a settlement agreement there was an attempt at appeal and it was dotted with this court is case number four case in in one form came to this court in docket number four dash seventeen dash four hundred and ninety five so this is actually the th time that this court has been parcels were dismissed from the property tax appeal board's appeal and the decision was rendered as of thirteen those thirteen parcels after the appellate case was dismissed with up on mr review with the circuit  they've had are opportunities to review the allege settlement agreement they have failed in those efforts and you know all these different variations of a review of the  they've been the same recycled arguments regarding farmland assessment and other farmland in waste land in developers relief exemption under section ten days thirty did something that nobody else had done in the other cases as far as i know i can't speak to what happened with regard to the two thousand acres but in this particular case the trial judge made a visit to the site who took those pictures which side did the of the players side take the pictures or did the defense side take pictures so the period which picture you're looking at you're getting a different flavor for what the residential area the area he saw everything's a result lands we took him where were we wanted to go he was available he said he looked at everything that we pointed out and so he had this unique perspective and after considering everything he determined no clues growing harvesting across the world was not mentioned was that the statue specifically says the farm does not include property it was which is primarily used for residential purposes even though some proper farm products maybe grow restrictive covenants the character of the neighborhoods would suit up on the point the character of the neighborhood mean the other houses in close proximity what your authority to take that consideration determination and i don't think you can look at one single source of the isolation i think you have to look at it as a whole here are we so take the person's word intrude into parts we have the fourteen tracks that there's testimony that there was crops on ok but when we look at those tracks and there's photographs and the director  you'll also see not only street signs there right there or even undeveloped road but you also have the water utilities there are located there so it's clear that these properties are i believe that is a factor with the right value but i guess what are your style i mean are you is that the use of the property now is being as residential all right yes there's not a whole on at all right but it's being treated by the owner as kankakee case one of the court things the court looks at well let's look at the character of what's what's going on around it to help make that determination and here what we have going on around it are residences i mean this is adjacent to them alongside them you also have no utility services sort of running with in or through those particular parcels once again houses are on those fourteen but there are services this if i may your honor i just point the court also to what's in the record showing the from two thousand and eight to the present of the marketing of these lots and as said well no because we still have to go back in the history of this this plant was purchased initially a four hundred and twenty acre track what your authority part of the history that's why i keep going back to remember we've got some case teaches us we look to the present use of the land so we've got the ready to look to the present as the land and i hear this argument over and over about the contemplated a wish for use of the land which we're all working