the damages that were submitted in support of the amount in controversy are three categories the first category is attorneys p to pay fifty four hundred dollars to them that they claim to the work over the amount of controversy as far as money damages of this case is fifty four hundred dollars two and the statute that is pled is texas civil practices and remedies code section thirty eight week old one which is the texas statute that when a party has a breach of contract claim against someone that they have the opportunity to recover or result in the syrian termes brews the reason that the attorneys fees whether it be  as huntington beach to a little city you don't get to recover under the statute of thirty eight overall want so therefore we don't even have to have a pocket about whether or not tony's bees would be added to the amount of controversy because they can't recover them under texas law the next damage category would be the insurance that they claim that they would have to put on the property because this dispute as the district court said this dispute really was about whether or not submitted was the corporate representative affidavit of mr tom chios and that the evidence on the insurance that they said they would supposedly have to put on this property other piece of property that they had that they thought was maybe similar to this property it would probably cost they would estimate between thirty one thousand and thirty four thousand dollars a year so mr keogh's testified that i just doubled the the thirty four thousand dollars and so the amount of troops to add into the account of damages for the insurance that we would have to put on this property is sixty thousand dollars well there's absolutely no question now as to why you would double why did why do you double the amount of money but the key here is that the evidence is hearsay it's hearsay within yourself it was not amount of insurance based on hearsay this court because the it is plain error by the district court is not sustaining my objection hearsay this court can h b two was paying the the lease payments and what they said is well if we have to terminate this lease which they ultimately did wrong  if we have to terminate this least there's forty eight hundred twenty four dollars of rant in you multiply that by twenty six months and therefore you end up with one hundred twenty five thousand dollars an amount well under texas law when you're going to determine what the value of a lease is in the best form of whether declaratory judgment is the bible we use although it's it's in this particular case there are zero damages because they terminated the lease under texas law in the boston hill palisade classic case calculate whenever a lease would terminate you wouldn't know when that would be and it's certainly not based on the evidence that they put before the court because what they did was terminated the lease within of the didn't happen in other words they were have to be a condition receipt that is somehow there had been a termination and at the time that they submitted their evidence of one hundred twenty five thousand dollars grant that will determin yes sir this and that's why at the at the beginning at at the time that the lawsuit was filed there was absolutely no basis for them to see to get to see any damages were providing would have been providing for ten years didn't comply with the lease kelso might suggest just have a minute or so left as anything else you want to raise this might be good time to turn to it  with respect to the court's rulings after the termination it's it's our position that what should have happened is there should been a notice of default notifying us that we had defaulted on the lease they knew about us in the notice of default because they had previously done so even though it was based on a duty to defend that didn't exist so in the record there is a notice of default but it doesn't say anything about insurance what they should have done is once that there was a declaration that the evidence that my client supplied did not come comply with the lease terms then they should send a notice of default saying the court has now under the declaratory judgment act said what you thought reflects and supports make it closure in a finding that the amount of controversy this case actually exceeds five million dollars and let me let me show you how i get there the law school property a opinion about the value of the property of others property that affidavit that five million dollar valuation goes unchallenged but it is undisputed and therefore the value of the right to people and the to recover one hundred twenty five thousand dollars and that's why this what were your damages at the time of filing why he's not cooperating with the way in which we got to the question of of the subject matter jurisdiction at seventy five thousand dollars is a combination of our calculation of what it would cost the place t v and i go online and i look it up and i said george it's going to cost six hundred dollars for the model that she was it's my testimony here saying i don't think so under the circumstances because i'm telling you what i understand to be would give rise to the media information of the least finally i've cited in our brief in the record multiple instances of actual notice of default in demands for performance i will cite the court to the particular ikea's a the same letter i was just referring to you that is supported by my invoice since fine it is the march sixth march seventh two thousand and sixteen letter and it was in connection with the issue for summary judgment in that to establish damages in fact that's the damages that product court soundboards were damages  grant the motion for summary judgment but in that affidavit mr keeps says that the value of the property is five thousand dollars in that the failure to have insurance on the property clauses it's loans to be to just to be in default and therefore for didn't issue a value of the property that's that's how we estimate that there are going to be the five million dollars in the record also less than sixty late days later when mr when they wrongfully terminated our lease in june of two thousand and seventeen mr somehow represented to the court that is the images were five million dollars when and when he said that the failure to put insurance on it would cause the loan to be in default or he was misrepresenting two months later to the new tenant that they were worn to represent that there were no no loans on on the property that's the way that all of this has occurred in this case when you talk about a notice of default the notices of the fall the the law construes that a notice of default must be strictly can be complied with especially when you're going to take some about five thousand dollars to begin with and then you know you might have a wonderful termination point claim i don't know about all that but you can bring that so some other time but we bring out some other time in another was