here we have maintained our position there the year ban a city ordinance first requires i take the issue if in fact you grew bad opposition and nothing else really relevant because the city of six point four one it says quote official or designated areas designate shout and again words are crossed out his authorized to goes from permissive to mandatory issue of food comply to it to any owner operator substantive issue to be bound by a new legislation but with respect to procedure surely procedures here was designed by the city to permit the city only to proceed to protect the land or to give them the opportunity to comply it sets forth a much much smaller finds it provides an internal administrative proceeding whereby if you can't resolve it you have the right that you know so there's no question in my thought at least that went dead ordinance wasn't bac my client had he actually been given the failure to comply ticket he could have settled this whole thing for two thousand one hundred fifty dollars yes instead of being exposed to all of these particular fines there's no issue i think with respect to the fifteen dollars per day from june one two thousand and twelve to may twenty first two thousand fourteen and then it thout amended our second american play and it said well from june twelfth two thousand and fourteen through june twenty fifth two thousand fourteen that's the date when the judge cut off imposed a fine of two hundred to seven fifty a day the court found two hundred eight was appropriate so if you had those numbers out if you just did the math and support in the brief then comes the thirteen thousand five eighty five for building or maximum find that my client should have been exposed to forty thousand seven fifty five and you know throughout civil practice this is a criminal case there is a limitation i mean when you file a complaint you put in something that gives rise to what the expectation is so that the defendant knows what back the potential claim is what damages could be assessed against and that's a fundamental fairness in this heartache and i think you know this rule references the paragraph is intended to make it clear that a prayer for penalty within the penalty range authorized by the ordinance is sufficiently specific to advise the defendant of the maximum penalty and only to which they are supposed that that language judge's errors i think clearly the court confused the statute one of six point four point three it unequivocally says each day of not compliance may constitute a separate offense the court in its ruling says each day the building  respect to the range of penalties that alone isn't sufficient to send it back the other thing i believe is confused about if i quote the case of city birth of the country versus suva survive basically hell that wants the side of the bill that was no longer occupied no said that he does not believe it that there's any limit palliation based upon occupancy there's nothing in the code that says you have to extend it past occupants here kind of nation and this instance if you remember the ultimate fact is that the channels connecting to case where the court at least should have known it had the authority to consider ending the dates for fines once the building was down and once you know occupancy continued so that was another concern that i raised here with respect to that to finding that there were violations that you have a separate hearing in which thank you terminations what is an appropriate fine should i keep each day as a separate violation what should i consider what was the park ration of approach circuit court used the criminal statute code to impose an additional fine of one hundred eighteen thousand six hundred ten dollars this criminal code does not apply to building ordinance cases and i know i fine that is so shocking and i think this is this is almost a take you know of some property and there's no there's no basis for which finding possible six hundred thousand dollars could be imposed in this case speculate the fact that they occupied during these hearings while these problems existed and we should wipe all of this away because fourteen months sixteen months after this entire process was initiated a procedural rule was change in the city ordinance i suggest that that makes absolutely no sense i asked the court to take a look at the chronology of events and i will not restate the facts in detail but this matter began in june first two thousand and twelve as the initial notice of code violations of them the deadline for repair was set in july this was later extended to september that it was extended to november in november the city inspected the property and found that nothing had been done it's also important to point out that the city notified platinum that we still don't know what's holding up these upper level walkways they are pulling away from the house so beams are bowed out you can see that in the appendix to our brief of the bridge mortaring is where where the walkways hit the building is bowed out suggesting that a brick holding this up and that brick is falling down we have a risk of falling concrete falling masonry we have cracks in the pavement we have sidewalks leaning toward the building that would force water toward the building and none of this was done now eight months after they were informed but they need to look into this they need to pull away some of that masonry and find out and determine just what's holding that balcony up  still haven't done it remember this started in june two thousand and twelve it's february two thousand and thirteen that their own architect said nothing has been done to to remedy the situation and it was at this point that they finally begin to pull away masonry to find out just how these balconies are connected sure enough they the results were inconclusive they still didn't know even in february eight months after this whole thing had be now they finally began work i believe sometime in may two thousand and thirteen we're talking about eleven months afterwards we finally have one contractor of masonry contractor come in so working on this building though his work was completed and that was one portion of the work was completed in the autumn of two thousand and thirteen now we have an ordinance it's amended now after all this time after experts have been hired structural engineers both the city and of platinum have been have been reviewing this this building looking for the flaws trying to determine how to fix it up or all this is were going on the city working with them to try to get this problem resolved then they changed the ordinance and platinum would have us have you believe that we should at that point have issued a three day failure to comply take it it just seems to me to be unthinkable we've been at this for sixteen months and now we're going to issue a ticket saying you need to fix all your problems in three days it's not really make sense if it makes no oh i agree with you that the fine was improperly pled away over the court has no choice but to follow the orders in other words a failure that an improper pleading cannot change itself it would be restricted by the purpose really your honor i don't believe it would i think that the court you know the statute is very clear as to what ordinances must be applied now to suggest that  no i do not because i look at the ordinances here and they're very clear and one thing i'd like to point out to the court is that had we filed a three day failure to comply to get the penalty schedule is much higher than the court actually impose in other words the violations that are imminent health life safety threat to occupants minimum fines seven hundred fifty dollars plus seven hundred fifty dollars per day until erected of a record plaintiff makes a very large point here that the court felt it had no discretion it was locked into this and that is absolutely untrue in the way of the end that's apparent from the court's ruling the court cut off the fines in other words if it felt locked in if it felt that the court felt that it had no discretion it's awarded damages it would have had to bring this all the way out into i believe april two thousand and fifteen is when the they finally passed the full inspection report into that the court shaved off quite a bit of time period that there were no fines were imposed so i think it's implicit in the court's judgment that discretion was applied in this case of i also do not see anything in the ordinance oh do and this is directed to your question of judge harris i don't see anything in the ordinance that woods of authorize a court to impose a fine less than what is called for by the had proceeded to a hearing on the pond which we didn't hear that if it sounds like that just based on what i've read in the briefs that the court on its own calculated on line and it wasn't that there was a hearing  excess of that forty thousand dollars and other words cities a request and or wouldn't couldn't be honored by the court i don't believe it could because to do so would be to encourage course to completely ignore the statute statute thousand seven fifty dollars or thereabouts which is what the city requests and the first what the court is the imposition of a fine is entirely within the court's discretion and it will only be  altered if we find in a use of discretion there this is the highest standard of review that this court faces the court did exercises discretion in reducing the amount number of days but for this court to suggest that it should have  and does does that again of authorize the trial court to ignore the plain language of the ordinance and that's that's the question there that would be a clear abuse of discretion the order of states that there is a minimum part of the court can't ignore that the due to an error in the pleading for there's a way for the court to give the city the forty thousand dollars here requested by considering the number of days it's going to my recollection is that the of the permits were issued in two thousand and thirteen and the work began and i know this refer back to work began masonry work began in may of two thousand if there are no further questions or improper pleadings i would just like to return for just a moment to the question of whether a feather to comply to it should have been issued one thing that at the outset i founded as i was saying earlier by that remarkable sixteen months working with these folks trying to get these building of problem code violations resolved and then suddenly a new procedure goes into effect retroactively now we have to give them a three day of better to comply ticket we had we issued bet ticket well i guess that that would cover everything moving forward from that day to what about the last sixteen months of code violations where nothing was done here he said on his if they pay that fine we can't go after those violations so be result in a double jeopardy there's another point here is that there are in the in the ordinance itself there are two separate penalty schedules one of them for failure to comply to its end and  the other for civil actions under one almost six are two completely different schedules why would they have two separate penalty schedules one for of better to comply ticket and another for under one hundred six for a civil suit it makes no sense the counsel had made a number of points about his diligence or platinums diligence of we suggest the to submit that the of the absolutely no diligence in this case the fact that we have potentially even their own experts suggest that the upper walkways might be in danger of collapse he said that in february two thousand thirteen and for the first time that's when they finally started doing to a polling brick away in the basin reweigh to find out just how these things were attached and they still didn't know in my view there was a complete lack of and that lack of diligence certainly supports the amount of the ward that the trial court issued this case the court as a further questions thank of talking about an abuse of discretion well that's part of it but i think clearly you're talking about a limitation if i'm placing a person i notice this is the maximum i'm asking for goes back what you're arguing it should seem it shouldn't be a this issue here you know could they have complied with a notice of philip i take it could him there's nothing in the ordinance that says you can only extend this so long the court issued a food like ticket and in this particular instance there is a serious of extensions they were given july sixteenth two thousand and twelve november thirtieth two thousand there were sixty two thousand and thirteen march first two thousand thirteen so there's clearly this whole history of