five day notice because perhaps the defendants might change their minds they were on the way in but he did make it pretty clear that he was moving out now so it wasn't all that clear notice these superfluous it doesn't it doesn't do with anything from a legal perspective if the once the person's moved out and he doesn't care if i did send out he's already gone and so it's all in the argument promises that some sometimes it would be but not in this case and the reason that the reason that's the case here is because mr vitale specifically told our client scott price that i have taken out confuse a motion for summary judgment on weary and there is a material issue of fact because it's a he said to come back in fact i would submit that right with mr vitale say the mayor didn't come up with what he's really saying is he didn't ask for a few extra days to get there so that person probably out if you're talking with you saying that i'm turning i begin the personal property which the extent that mr price says that he told me was a banning of personal property as well with this to mr wright tell him say that that didn't happen that is that is an issue of a fact is one title to provisions there that do govern the matter only trail or was not only wrong relative to its rationale it was also wrong as to which rationale that the statute precluded recovery under the circumstances because you've just told us that it's not based upon more than your right to do tional grant is not based upon compliance with the statute  personalty is there any other factual scenario that you're aware oath that would preclude summary judgment well the fact that he told that mr pray tell told mr price that i have to i have to take my employees out i have to take myself out he's he's telling him that he's already done that he's not saying that i'm going to do there are one more month he's telling he's telling scott prays that he's doing there right now only has done it his letter of october fo says that i removed myself in my employees from the premises now this deposition tried to evade that he tried to say that that's different from moving out but eventually here greed that no idea i didn't vote and when the when i told him i was doing that i would companies could easily afford to pay the rent but he chose not to do that and the reason he chose not to do that is because he was moving out if you really needed a few extra days or a few extra weeks to store his stuff or even finally the route he would have gone ahead and pay their rent an hour tolbert his he did it job and can't afford to pay it but looking for a place to live on the rent comes due and oh no i can't pay the rent while home i hope i can get it i hope they scrape together a few bucks to do it that's that's very different from what we had in this case we're here in th didn't pay the rent in october two thousand and twelve means that he isn't into joe sure that everything else the fact that in all this stuff about the fact that he called it an issue for us all week we've established that well he moved out all the stuff that he wanted told mr price that he moved out everything he wanted tell the version that he didn't he didn't ask for a few more days to get his stuff out he said i am gone i left and mr price as in addition to that he said i already took out everything i want to take out and you do what you want with the rest of it right true but the but then that is of the next thing in that is that i pointed this head he provided affidavit says that you know what if he did change his mind if he says oh you know what i decide i want to live with em but that doesn't mean in this case that he did anything wrong for he didn't do any act that deprived mr vitale possession and that's threat really wasn't a threat because why because you left well if you left you must look voluntarily even though you were threatened i mean i don't really think that case was well thought out to the extent that will even if even if that were the case and i can see that argument that wasn't the case here the remote threats given here instead it was in this it was the defendants who on their own initiative to the extent he provided this to the town with the opportunity to pay for the five hundred dollars within five days so that he could get back in there and actually get his personal property i everything that the landlord did in that case was specifically consistent with what the agreement was between the parties to the extent that there was a requirement in your reading that i can give you notice if you're to go out they were too mean that's entirely different but that the principle of that case remains the same to the extent that there's if you're going to  good with a jury of might want to ask anyone to present evidence on that but the trial court demands an opportunity presented that to a jury the jury can decide if that's consistent with a with a right of possession or not it's an issue interior fact