upon and actually it was consistent with with the argument here i've provided the court with some excerpts from closing argument and trial testimony it was actually the defendant's position before the jury that they didn't want the dog that somehow my client had not not taken advantage of opportunities to get the dog back the jury believe that even in the face of the fact that there was a counter claim filed  losing on the possession issue and on the seven issues open the door for the defendants to drive straight through with this defense on on the damage of course the damage portion was you know i've been practicing long enough to know that no jury in central illinois was going to work my client very much damages if any for not having a dog for a while so it wasn't really a surprise to me that the jury would would say well you got your dog back what more do you want you know everybody go your own way timing wise in fact if we had had a summary judgment in the and the dismissal of the counterclaim before we were literally in the courts chambers waiting to pick the jury i might have said well let's just drop the remainder of this case and not even bother with a jury trial on dammit but timing wise we had only witnesses there we were there so we went forward with that trial we never sh reach that point the the defense in this case was based upon the premise that there was some sort of evidence to support a legal position of abandonment no abandonment certainly is  theoretically a viable defense or or in terms of the counterclaim a basis for obtaining ownership but under illinois law that can only be found if there's an intentional leap relinquishment in other words and i don't think it's that's unique to illinois i think probably most states have that same requirement that there has to be some showing up in attention to get rid of the personal property addition and in this case let me just ask you something here you were saying if something had happened to a certain point you might just drop the remaining case the door was i could not is a matter of fact the statute as i read it requires me to press forward with that on pain of possibly abandoning the reply getting goods if i don't prosecute to the conclusion of the cases happened is at that point and i had requested this of mr reese on and his client even before he became involved on several occasions would you just please drop your claim to the possession their own ownership of this dog so that we can then and his clients to just drop that plane so that we can determine whether there's anything left of damages and in those letters i specifically informed mr reese that i understand that if you give me the dog back or and proctor claim to ownership so the pet issue is out of haste that i will have little if any remaining claim for damages so please do that for your own benefit as well as mine and for the most part those letters correct the numbers that came out at trial were from two hundred to six hundred dollars and will give the dog back my client testified that he didn't factor greet pay those and before that seven beyond short of that the first offer of it was made to just return the dog will give you the dog back directed directly to me gave me a list of numbers and he said if you pay this and drop any claim for damages you can have a dog back well we were on our way into the courtroom at that point i had all my witnesses there to get the dog  could have had a claim and that's why we had to follow through with all of the litigation in order to knock out the ten witnesses that they've named as having relevant information on the  i kept waiting for that witness or that piece of evidence that my client had said to someone i don't know a back or that he had actually run the dog off when the dog wandered off in june of two thousand a section one hundred eighty three action ending in this central mystery that has to do with sargent is giving away the dog in the first place rather than contacting my client and giving him the opportunity to based upon really the fact that they had no no vehicle basis to keep the dog were just doing it because they had an animosity toward my client which was revealed in all of their discussions of the one i was twenty six letter your honor does actually have sort of i was three letter thanks him for that and offers to pay their expenses we do recognize that from the time that the dog was in their care up until the time my client showed up that certainly we're glad that the dog was treated well was taken care of beyond that however they had no right to it and they had no right to make these unreasonable demands of mr o e just to get his property that is you know it think of it is any other property you find a watch or a wallet on the street i've got your wallet but i'm not going to give it back unless you give me fifty bucks or well to to the true owner the those policies are just ignored in this case in fact we cited link the stories in lost property act in both the original complaint and the amended complaint of the time that patrick o'keefe showed up and said this is my dog and i can prove it and he did prove it and they you proved so all they knew is when he showed up he was in the condition of a strike how does that show a particularly in the face of this man standing there saying that's my dog and like that here's my proof here's my registration here's pictures of the with the dog can i have him back the mere fact that he was was malnourished had passed would have been evidence of abuse but abuse does not mean abandon and there's a whole part of the animal control act and other statutes criminal code that it leaving me with the the strategy choices of figuring out i could have moved forward and then they would have been granted we'd three pleaded and we've gone down that road or what in my experience turns out to be generally the more expeditious and cheaper way of going is just allow that beating to stand ask what basis they have for making that pleading address those issues as they can and then its motion for summary judgment and in this case we went down the list of the witnesses that they claimed were available to to prove abandonment and not one of them said anything other then things like we've heard that this dog had run off before which was before they ever met patrick o'keefe before they had ever seen the dog talking about these things that had happened several years earlier and at this point i'm just assuming that those are true actually those aren't the way they've been characterized but it's a given the benefit of the doubt and assume that three years two years even two months before this dog had previously escape it doesn't change the scheme of illinois law that is guided by the last and this or the stories in lost property act and the animal control act what if the dog been gone for a year i would still say the dog had a microchip as no where in that year i mean during this time period my client was looking for the dog but regardless of the dog the amount of time that hit passed wouldn't have changed the fact your card is the right the dog even if the dog has been raised by the other prey only for five years under the law i believe that you correct your honor i don't think i'm not aware of any case i'm not aware of any statutory authority and i'm not sure what if even if we were to draw that line where the line could possibly be drawn two months two years six years if there is nothing it's my property is same as if ten years from now somebody finds a art that was taken from my house it's still mine and that's first year law school the first your property that i recall that you cannot lose your title to the property simply by the passage of time or by didn't do anything so to bend them i would say that would maybe depend on more circumstances than that but the amount of time thank you very much thank you you have rebu trial court was a little bit odd but i don't think that the trial court misunderstood that it was within its freshened to award sanctions in this case in their motion for sanctions on demanding return of the dog our clients were way out of the country during that period when they arrived on august twentieth they were served with a suit was filed shortly thereafter they were served us with the suit then on august counsel for the plaintiff it made it clear that no matter what you do at this point you are going to move forward and seek damages and i and in that to me on my very good say now it's too late any point in time during this may suit being filed be a body pick up the phone and say let's talk about this before we get too far down the road m one problem with this appeal is that the appellant has not placed a complete record before this court he's only brought out parts of what was said in the closing argument i think maybe three things a you talking about it and it's  or prior occasions and it was allowed to run free and this was a dog that had been gone one time higher for seven weeks o'keeffe knew that this was a dog that if allowed to roam free had a tendency not to return  they paid for its shelter to her period of time the pay for better care they could have simply said we don't want to take this dog and have given it away now that some of the statements that were pointed to in the closing eight to twelve in the appendix a c one thirty in the in the record as you know though you didn't respond to that letter and when i tried to call you after your return from your trip yeah well you know what i my dog my client's dog was not being returned to him nobody was responding seeing that he's eighteen years old what do you expect i know and that's one of the reasons why i was drinking most of these things for the parents but when they returned they wouldn't talk to me you know it was just stuff what else am i going to do sit there in a stalemate until they did they just decide to give the dog back  i understand that but while i also understand he has that i don't see how anybody involved in this case be proud of honor we had in order to recover something that was unquestionably the property of my client had incurred unnecessary legal fees and the rest of the damages are intangible