well united states makes its condemnation award to the owner of the building and then the question is to what extent that award should be allocated after it's received by the landlord between we have the pie he doesn't he doesn't it's not really properly allowed to go back to revisit the making of the pie what he needs to do is to divide up on a contractual basis the amount of money we're talking about is very significant it puts a lid a one point five million dollars on the landlord's obligation now that's relevant to talk more three because it means the parties understood that we're talking about a whole lot of final point given that the depreciated value means cost necessarily the money has to come from the landlord because there is no law there will never be any law that a government agency and  only two parties chose that option only s t h properties the owners of the property and the government chose to present evidence that there is a value to the property when i wait a minute we're not in and reviewing an eminent domain proceeding here were interpreted in the provisions of leases and i don't see how there's any duty on the part of these tenants to somehow participate in  the owner nor the government believe that nor did their appraisers if you're going to see the building has value you must preserve evidence that the building has forever this judge was faced with reading appraisals that serve the building predecessor sort of luck no matter what happens whether there's any money in this kind of makes an award or not i will remember less tell you exactly what you paid for what you put into that r compensation for the taking of the fees or severance damages and that's a pretty clear statement is it not that some work some part of what the landlord receives because the united states is only dealing with the landlord has to be allocated property occupancy that's below the market the judge did not believe that he did not believe the testimony did the job singleton specifically make findings of fact with respect me find a place where how would you apply the same principle with respect to twelve point three and the other least of the language there is different i guess the two questions first from the landlord's point of view was i should be entitled to receive the difference as measured by the capitalization of the difference i think that's what a good lawyer would try to get from any tentative if you've got a deal on a leas finally gave in and do a lot of pressure that the business people were making particularly the redevelopment areas where their businesses were just being ousted that allowed recovery for compensation for goodwill so all addressing california law is the leader in that same paragraph they talk about moving costs per cent of government such and such which is peculiarly california it is the california government code which provides for the good will award from the federal government i don't think so we will look very hard because exactly if it were wrong you should remain because it has nothing to do with the owner it only gets no part of it well building could have gone and service this restaurant well are in the future through the end of the lease at least had it not been for the taking and not my client testify specifically that there was knowledge that this building  restaurant work and the testimony in that was uncontested in the testimony by my clients again uncontested was my client's last three hundred seventy thousand dollars of goodwill generated by the twelve years of the answer to well the reason for that is my client is concerned about the concept of the taking if my property is taken if i lose my restaurant i want to make sure that i have guarantees of restoration of my investment in  provision that deals with what do i get if the government comes along the property we did not intend to incorporate in the main pretty principles and the twelve point three rather contract principles i'm sure for compensation for my clients investment and that's all of the parties to the condemnation proceeding had an interest in it in other words i so this is the united states versus the owner of the building and separately each constituent property holder of an interest in that building is first of all is that correct that far to that extent i guess the interest we certainly had a real property interest yes but it was the value of your real property interest entertained as part of the government condemnation separate from the lease actually the lease also addressed that to some extent we gave up as part of but had nothing to do with twelve point three our rights because however that was a direct government award that had nothing to do with any claims you might have against the landlord correct but i do think that the forty thousand dollars isn't offset against the payment by the owner of the cost per twelve point three another point that council made was that the contract obligations i allude to may not have passed to the to his