the interior line there in the gravel drive is no longer clearly set forth there has been some growth in the construction starts  the concrete driveway there this concrete driveway it was joshua helmets then is critical to the use of the eastman's in order for cars to go in and out of this driveway there must be a place for these difficulties to turn around and that is by actual use become so significant the final picture of this preliminary review i ask you to note a twenty this isn't it prevents the plaintiffs mr mr helmet from using it as it was used for twenty five years and this is exhibit a twenty seven this a little bit easier to see the importance she testified consistent with what you posted and the plaintiffs in this case the final document here that is extremely important in understanding the testimony in the case exhibit eighty three it's a large exhibit that i have copied and attached as a sixty five there's different colors on it and this particular document is interesting because it each of these colors represents something important from a different kind of witness and the blue line is the line that  drew based upon professional degree of engineering certainty that represents the interior of the gravel drive in one nine hundred ninety four and here lived numerous exhibits going back to the original creation second vision which he was also directly involved in the yellow line that is faint that goes from the concrete approach over to the west i'm like a sixty five where it goes to the work of gravel o straight back but it cannot be a reform with ted that's the biggest reason why the the thirty four judgement should be reversed because it's simply not functional it's inconsistent with the and so it really boils down to doing what is proper here and that is the standard with respect to the clerk towards us and the cases are many but with and that's exactly what happened in this the said the first alternative is addressing the issue of whether or not there is an ambiguity in the first place improvement all of these pictures the plants directly across the driveway the metal gate the rocks are often as he something house and then this in the middle of the driveway directly north of the whatsoever that's where he went wrong initially and therefore substantially altering the path then the team play into this property right as it was used for twenty five years and so we're going to hear extensive evidence and then you get the same result and so there was alternatives but what happened was something entirely different and it was not based upon fact or law i'll reserve a few here i don't think that was sufficient to resolve the actual controversy we need a clearer with and judge to believe that now like players have been going in and out of the driveway in the snow and everywhere backwards but with banners on either side and it's been very very difficult the issue of intentional based on what i saw and there were there were parts of it worse actually narrower i think we can see that from the pictures and the courts said that that's what sort of all that you would stand it out to the tents i think that's property holder to go for the servant property and even if he did that even if it would improve the dish to permit that to happen it could not do that to the detriment of the serbian property if the dishes for granted you're not put in a culvert you have to put think that evidence is to be construed by the court i think probably was the driveway at that point we're talking about the entire driveway for use by the serbian property on the land rights was that wired at that point i don't think there's any dispute we can look at it  that but at the witnesses don't make statements of well the fact that they're talking about their driveway making the wrong comment if that's what they did doesn't make it a nice it's just a description of what's the naturally allowed some training around while they were relayed the test points clear we had a mother in law a mother and and mother in law of the couple that with purchasing the property from them that's created the power of the issue but they also invited more for death so they invited for dinner does that mean that that increases that right i mean when you have a relationship between relatives and subsequently between friendly neighbors that space and even if they have per minute if they have said to their neighbors we will allow this for a while that doesn't change the isa all those is the friendly neighbor there is no gave the parties the right to read the closing argument and they have let's have the opportunity for written a rebuttal argument so it's not like they didn't get an hour early to present the case  have no choice whether or not there is sufficient space i can direct the court to photograph in twenty nine in a sixty two these two photographs list that there's the outline is it just fess there's a concrete approach there's simply no place to do it there's a small front yard they've built a porch on that front yard and they