mentioned a prior about a year and a half ago the sale of the property and the term of the lease were immaterial because the dad had what sure prior to the end of the lease and th of over fifteen years we have at least the language of the lease itself presents an issue of material fact to be tried and not for the summary judgment bring an action period because the issue is whether or not the lease at the last time transferred to the new landowner which releases typically do in most situations this nice was already  and find that the national for summary judgment was granted correctly so this case and this appeal is about at this point whether or not the contract provides for payments for ten years after the lease term ends on which is a contract and then it says again in another sense during the remainder of the terms and it says in another sentence during the remainder of the term each time it says what the whaler can recover it references back to the turn of the week and nobody disagrees that during the term these amounts were paid the question is whether or not they would continue for ten more years which is still now even theoretically under their theory it's going to twenty twenty so really not a party agreed to keep part of the lease essentially going part of a contract killing for ten more years and certainly there's nothing explicit saying we're going to pay you for ten more years and if you look at the other provisions in that contract they all say the allegations and of the term and that's fairly consistent with the law which is when a contract ends the obligations that right it's fairly simple if your contracts over your obligations are over so the preceding big they knew when they said keeps after the lease is over they said fifteen years we're going to pay for five minutes so the landlord would have gotten the next ten to pay higher rent because of that improved building they might not if you take a look at office space office space might have to be redone for a new tenant so obviously you pay for that in a five year fifteen year the tenant only place for rent it's using that's fairly reasonable and fairly clear interpretation from  that even if you take a look at that for a while but it's i think it's worth looking at because the evidence shows again five years of payments they recognize that there's this fifteen year amortization which is just spreading out of the cost because if you didn't spread it out fifteen years you got to pick some numbers right to spread it out and it's a fifteen year use for right so you look at the pool and and in that there's a stench of rubbish showing the payments and it for ten more years there's nothing in the lease that explicitly says we're going to pay for ten more years the survival was doesn't say this this provision sh survive and you should pay for ten more years and you look at the other provisions of the lease and they all say you pay during the term and if somehow something like wrong the tenant would have to pay for rights during th and i don't have the maturity argument again resin issue of standing but if you follow it to its conclusion i i don't think it needs you to a correct place in the lab because if you think about it they feel we would be saying due no no your honor because the question is really whether or not the parties agreed out of that lisa i don't think anybody disputes that both parties perform their obligations fine during the term of the lease so the question is whether or not was a nomination of pay i think that the court ruled on that before i as a matter of whether or not the lease says that the parties had to continue that the parties would continue being paid i think that's the issue to tr and there's nothing in the lease itself that says that there is an obligation to continue paying after the tournaments and in fact it that he says in repeated places that payment is during the time and not after and there's certainly nothing that says because it was an act of lease the court house if the as an obligation to pay me obligation would have been there prior to the sale and there for they could have standing to bring that plane i the at the actual merits of the party's arguments not the standing issue at all anymore i because there was an issue of standing for consideration to report the merits which is the party's arguments about how the contract should be interpreted  which is the argument the critics personally did not this court did not reached last time and said read did the parties agree that the obligations will continue ten years after the leasing and that's what held and that is it a different issue than the standing issue that just keeps on there that gives them the right to bring a claim it's much like bed the gentlemen's who gets injured he says that party injured me yes standing to make that allegation whether or not it's true is that is a different issue and the issue that quote subsequently ruled out in america it's well if a court makes a finding as this court did that the defendants alleged it was a motion isness on an allegation of a complaint and that's what the court ruled i mean that the clerk did not it the issue on the merits obviously goes to a summary standing here based on their allegations the obligation to church and then let the trial court decide whether or not there was an obligation that's the merits issue versus the  allegation finding that that's what they had to latch and certainly that this is what they had alleged and so it is for the paper first the last time and said consider the merits which is where we're presenting today i met a question about whether or not the parties that actually motion reconsider by the way they again the only argument they raised in their response to summary judgment was they felt that section three point zero two required payment for fifteen years that was it was a serious contract interpretation argument that was argued that summary judgment not anything else until motion to reconsider and they themselves in their breath my complaint say this was a payment thing that went over fifteen years they don't say it was something that was due immediately at any point they say this was a payment it's over fifteen years structured payments and that's never if i complained i which is a binding judicial admission on their