dispute the sequence of events where you have a client who says i have no money to continue to maintain this place for several reasons which were the disputed one being that she now was in a divorce that we have to we have to you know decide whether the trial court if they do some member answers whether you know they were appropriate in francis said of the truck or drew some inferences from behavior we have to decide if there's any problem with that so i found to be in necessary element for her ability had that ability of the premises this is a month to month lease why keep bringing it why didn't she just end the lease and i can try to answer the question and the judge found that credible so why don't we stop with that for this well if even if we're stuck with that we will see have to come back to the sequence of events and when that what i was there actually turned off  what she can pay the water any more she does nothing to prevent to prevent the tenants from continuing the water service this runs for twenty months now landlords if but on the other side there was a high standard of the trial court but now you face the standard or a view of showing clear error and that's a high standard so i think you're the side at this point in the case it faces the high standard not disputed that she could she hadn't she did have the front about not to continue the payment she actually tells them as if she does nothing to stop wanting them from country to weather service for twenty months now but there's another another fact here in the record which i think undercuts what you're saying and that is that she did attempt to evict one of the other tenants and apparently was unsuccessful in court so you could then draw the inference i think the trial court did draw the inference that she wanted to get these people out of the building because the trial court found that she'd told them that had decided the formal legal eviction process wouldn't work and picked a different way which is basically to starve them out and this and  bankruptcy judge rather the head to testify the only reason she did not resort to water service the property was because you can offer to do so this testimony is not credible and he goes on to explain why and he kind of considered that but rejected it yes and what we're trying to present in front she she had the power to do that she didn't want what you have is a levy really bad landlord well the the statement that the judge credited about child services coming in you should leave kind of flavors  morning your honor just before i get started was there any particular question that the court wanted me to address would like me to address i think you can go ahead and dress the point that opposing counsel is making that there is testimony or some evidence in the record that one of the tenants had assumed the water bill and why isn't that evidence of an inability to pay your dues there's also evidence in the record and i'm not going to sort of argue against the record which is what i think appellate this trying to do here the key is a think the trial court noted in its memorandum was that  covering utilities could have started up the water on their own paid some monthly charge and get the water running or as a real licensed real estate professional could have either instituted it unlawful det and there's no evidence that that was ever tried well that would have been a logical remedy if people weren't paying rent that would we laugh or does this quite a lot so we see that quite a bit three day notices it would have been difficult in th situation because with the water turned off there are some defenses available to the tenant but that is typically what landlords want to do if they don't want tenants in there and frankly the quarter already found that it wasn't credible  you know for some reason or another that they didn't want to file an unlawful detainer because they were afraid of certain tenants and i think the opponent mentioned during argument that that he would defer to the judge on findings of who is credible and i think that's important in this situation you know and i think that that colors a lot of what happened at the trial court is that you know the appellant's testimony simply was not credible based on inconsistency these failures to answer the fact that she was a license real estate professional who frankly had another investment property in arizona and then all of a sudden doesn't know what to do with this six unit property where people had their as i think is you mentioned judge lafferty it is the third time it was gas the tennis match but that in their name electricity tennis match but not in any and not water and i think the significance there is not i mean it may have been the trial court was focused on water because that's a unique kind of problem right and that by week i mean if you talk thing about in france is the fact this was the third problem might be something you'd want to consider right absolutely and then you take it take into account you know the the other facts in this case brought brought in by my client where she made multiple attempts reaching searching the children just to make sure that they're ok and having to worry about things like that having to and then you know we get into the issue of damages which they didn't argue or argument what i think sort of we dealt with in our brief in that there was ample finding that that this war this situation you know almost a year's worth of having no water and all sort of the consequent damages that are kind testified to warranted the maximum allowable daily damage amount of one hundred dollars and could you pronounce your last name for me again i thought oh d t ok i thank you please go ahead first of all i think i kind of heard some of the things that the counsel have just talked about most of the that at the time that she couldn't pay the water in the mall on time that she said turn it over i love somebody else to take over the payment what was the state of mind and what did she do at that point if anything to stop the what if the  in february of twenty thirteen going twenty months at a time that she interrupted the water or was it where she could she couldn't pay or the state of mind i think i had other things to made the decision thank you thank you very much and thank you both sides for your very good arguments that matter