rent of twenty seven dollars and seventy one cents a square foot that consisted of two components the sixteen dollar fifty cent base component and the one dollar twenty one cent i can come on that was  you know what i'm sure you're correct it's age the error in this case was that there should here been an additional sentence on paragraph f and some changes in the language to reflect the fact that know but what we do have is the case for the citizens reformation is retroactive reformation dates back to the date of the original agreement and the contract isn't forcible as the original agreement back to that the agreement then the minutes of that meeting there reflected the agreement and then the contract for sale which generally talks about the rents as well in any  was the that was the real in this particular instance we're told to enforce this because what we're trying to force is the actual agreement that the parties made back in two thousand and six my client had to go through paid the invoice amounts that came out in the first couple of months and when the amended notices came out with the mint did the invoices his attorneys that were in compliance with the lease thank you that's exactly correct but i will go to maybe on advice of counsel maybe other ways so that you know if he knows it's a mistake if he's not paying it why didn't you bring another cap it we can you if you did not have reformation be retroactive you would create a situation where these are the advantage of a defendant to drag really the issue now it would be arbitrary because the dat here as to who is the cause of the error keep in mind it's the defendant's position that the cause of the error was dr charmes driving frugality in this case her refusal to hire attorneys fifteen or twenty seven fifty the thing but the they were strong armed into signing this thing under penalty of her calling and financial circumstances here we have a nice it's a thirty two lead and that was joe daniels email to disappear or at c h michael both of this is exhibit a whether joe daniels on the tour twenty seven that day before the second meeting tells his is if it's a seven year lease it's twenty seven seventy one if it's a ten year lease it's twenty six twenty one that's what the partnership that he was a party to agree to if you s want eighty four in the appendix and it says wrench show me one of the following it's his annual rent should be twenty seven seventy one for ten years twenty six you know that neither this document was not privileged in any sense of the word even from the get go despite the fact that stratfor attempts to bring mr vandeman on within the control i was not told in any way shape or form that we have to see the documents first we have reviewed them first later that afternoon got the phone number i call merriman there was no mistake as account some measure of fall if if my client acted foolishly a real stake maybe she wouldn't retire to take advantage of this particular provision and i go back to the way in which of this paragraph and the first portion of this mentions fault but then this is the second sentence which is the one we're seeking to to seek fees under her fees under has no provision for faulty just simply says if there's an action to enforce the lease in implying that is if it's a successful action to enforce ways we're entitled to fees so it's pretty clear that the the provision here awards us fees and requires treasonous successful action to force terminations to who the prevailing party is there was no determination that below i would submit that the record is clear enough that there would be potentially no ephraim into that issue we're the only party with a real sh my understanding is by the law firm that represent of the general partner which was one of the central two page entities at the time and who drafted these leases is two thousand five hundred yes these leases were drafted by the or clear of a need or perhaps there are disagreements dr morgan seems own testimony is crystal clear here understood the purchase proposal he got which by the way does not mention the number sixteen fifty he understood the purchase proposal he got in october two thousand and seven require him to pay twenty seven dollars in rent he agreed to pay twenty seven dollars in rec there are some discussion when my close encounters up here to the effect that well dr morgan seems suspected that touch the elisas nowheres and both sides their clients in nobody noticed this particular provision everybody saw in the entire sign it was twenty seven dollars so i'm not i guess i'm not crystal clear on what the mistaken case one of the parties more years invited the other way or just come into his office interview documents without any sort of previous review that was extraordinarily characters in this particular instance  witness we had called him in advance and said we've got a subpoena and we believe that documents you may have may be privileged we would like to review them first he agreed to that case was pretty clear none of those are a political reformation action because we're now trying to enforce a stand or remain to try to enforce a written contract but simply say that one of the terms of the contract is wrong and based on  parties that she substantial benefit i don't think it can be said that either side is a prevailing party also on the subject of attorneys these would strongly suggest that the very reason for declaratory judgment action should be used for this action as well but all of those i think both of those answers were answered against your client in essence those dr morgan since testimony that time and sign he expected to win agreed with twenty seven seventy one but none of his other terms and conditions were met he signed under compulsion duress  he didn't want this lease at sixteen fifty or twenty seven seventy one and when he saw the first available opportunity at twenty seven he accepted this was not the result of a