ok thank you very much and so contrary to a lot of cases where the court may be looking over a set of faction determining whether or not some statute applies  a constitutional provision that what we're really talking about here is whether or not this particular situation violates fundamental principles of justice equity and good conscience so it's really a direct  judgment about whether or not this is a just situation and obviously there's been an argument raised that well we don't have to reach the justice issue here in this case because there is no real benefit to the defendant here that the defendant the defendant was benefited when his father gave him a farm but he's not really benefited by these peeps our position is well yes he is benefited by these payments because payments when the father gave him the farm sadly he didn't pay for on brother the farm years ago there's no lawsuit that can be filed there or at any time over that particular thing but what happened here in addition to that not only did that occur but were father gave son a farm which he has a perfect right to do that but in this case it turned out it was not discovered until much later that father ran up two hundred fifty thousand in debt to pay for a good portion of that farm and when father died he had four hundred thousand in debt the sons agreed to split that debt because and so it turned  later that the one son discovered wait a minute dad has a right to give him a farm we're not complaining about that but now i just agreed  because when when the dad passed away we had a debt doing holding from the estate of the debt that yes we did it was about four hundred thousand it turns out t fifty of that was used by that other phone which we did you know i understand that yes but the agreement that the two brothers made was to pay off the father's debts and presumably i guess to save the family part that's right that's right so no better if the dad said he pulled away four hundred thousand dollars from what's what's the difference is that the two fifty really was not gambled away was not frittered away if was not run up in the operation of that business it turns out they didn't know what time i don't know even whether the first brother knew it at the time i certainly don't have any proof of that and there is no that's never been an issue that he was being  that he knew it misrepresented defrauded it's just the mere fact that that's what that money had gone for as we now know that's what that money had gone for in my client had mortgage to a land back yes so is it is it fair to say he has agreed to pay half of the debt or is it more accurate to say he chose to accept the family farm which have the i think that's right i think that's right i mean the debt was on the family farm so i mean if and that gets me to what i'm talking about here about this but what i think the issue in the case it some of your questions imply to me that you may say well i don't know that you may think that i don't presume to read your mind but that if some hypothetical person might say well i questioning that right in this lawsuit is not about that right of a father to treat somebody on equal and i mean everybody knows there's no lawsuit to be filed over i certainly don't have any evidence of that i never accused him of it and certainly no proof so this case is not a fraud case you you know you lied to me and you knew you were lying and misled  me and all that sort of thing i've ever been  how you prevail if there's no fraud is if there's unjust enrichment all right and if it's a fraud case that's a whole different set of theories and that's a whole different set of facts so if you're not  pay for a farm the whole family was buying as i said so far as i know he didn't know what i mean i certainly have no proof that he has i would rather knowledge even to know why all the brother who got the farm given to him all right it turns out that that two hundred fifty thousand of the debt was used to pay for a good chunk of that farm whether the recipient of that farm the brother of the defendant  charles poole whether he knew that that's where his father got this money or are but i really do realize that myself so trolls didn't even know that his farm got paid for because his father had put it and it just them working for the family there is no proof of that i mean just what the underlying fact is i don't know but there's certainly no proof of that we didn't allege that and if we had alleged it we couldn't prove i mean there are no business strictly on whether or not payment of which is what my clients are doing which we didn't know at the time that he started but years later he discovered that two hundred fifty thousand of this debt had been used to buy his brother the farm and we felt we alleged this was this was unjust to require him to do the mistake was that when my client agreed to do this he did not know eat he was acting out of ignorance of one fact and that was that two hundred fifty thousand to this debt complaining about all the depth of relates to the family farm i mean i'm not complaining about all the debt that that to that applies to the family farm i'm i'm coming complaining about two hundred  charles who was the guy that has the venue in county if that's found to be unjust enrichment what should be done is he should step in and pay that half of if he is if the court finds that that's on justin richmond then i think that's the way to correct it probably by sending it back and let a trial court determine what really what the damages are but i think the issue for this court is whether or not that particular circumstance or set of facts where we're paying two hundred fifty were we're paying half of two hundred fifty thousand portion of what was owed on the family  bought rather the  circumstances a court rules that that doesn't violate any fundamental principles of justice equity and good conscience and there's no whether there's an enrichment or not there is no unjust  think that's not that is not what is john kerry just for us to be for us to be paying that that's our assertion that chart position certain framework that must be met for that cause of action to lie because here the parties the brothers had an express agreement that no one is disputing was honored in full and i'm just in richmond richm d can't lie as a matter of walk and separate and independent of that premise the facts themselves do not support just a risk reclaim because there was no connection between any benefit to the action of unjust enrichment doesn't wise and i don't walk back cause of action is where is to create an implied contract but when you have an actual express contract the claim doesn't even come into play as a matter of was in that same case still the supreme court also said and this goes to the assessment of the equities of the case separate apart from there being an expression green the court said a person is not entitled to compensation on the grounds of unjust green with his brother in one thousand nine hundred three to enter this refinancing arrangement where they paid off the federal lying land banks lien refinanced property with the green county national bank and agreed to share in the burden of repaying that refinance loan the plaintiff got what he wanted he prevented the family farm from being foreclosed and lost in the foreclosure process he saved the brother's mother's house from being lost in the foreclosure process and he wound up with half of that family farm the brother shared in the alone burton and then they split the property and the plaintiffs got a property that you otherwise they have an agreement we're going to put a mortgage on it and we're going to pay it back even and we're going to use the proceeds from the farming business or some other agreed source of funds to pay off this strongly incurred debt and of one reaches that agreement the solution is a breach of contract if the brother goes defendant brother goes into that deal with some sort of fraudulent intent the remedy is a fraud cause of action in addition to a breach of contract cause action but it's because there was was agreed upon terms that you don't need to rely on unjust enrichment now we are not saying that that is the only reason plaintiff's claims you're not survive here because certain apart from the existence of an express agreement the facts don't fit the framework of an unjust enrichment for other reasons but the existence of that express agreement obviates because of actually completely as a matter of law in this case if but if trolls knew that that money was spent on there might be a fact issue there in the fact issue is was the undisclosed or misrepresented fact immaterial one because and i think everyone all the parties agree that those are the facts and plaintiff has conceded in his deposition th no misrepresentation but taking your honour's hypothetical there would be a for president action if there was a misrepresentation of a material fact but not this not disclosing the source of the debt that led to the conference on the family farm is not really a material fact it doesn't affect what i think this is getting out of the deal he's paying for half the debt and he's getting half the farm he's avoiding foreclosure he's saving mother's house research your honor i point out circumstances were not just in richmond cause of action law is because of wrongful conduct i don't believe those situations involving express agreement but i'd like to address those because if we set aside t original claim comes from a third party and you know illinois supreme court and other cases have addressed it the supreme court did indeed health care case they said i'm just in richmond claim a lie where the benefit is conferred by a third party rather than by the plaintiff where the benefit should have been given to the plaintiff but the third party mistakenly gave it to the defendant stead the defendant procured the benefit from the third party to some type of wrongful conduct such as fraud was a loan if there was any requisite or repayment the state did not bring a claim against charles stephen the plaintiffs testified that he had asked the father for a contribution a couple years before that so he could get his family his own individual farm the father denied probably years later the father helps out charles maybe that didn't sit too well with stephen over the years but as the parties agree the father had every right to treat the sons separately and different yeah so this wasn't so solely a one sided relationship one brother got a foreigner who been caught our county the other brother got a lot of expensive farquhar charles isn't complaining about that it was the father's decision to do what he wished with his assets but what is missing another thing that is missing from the claim is there was a benefit conferred to charles by the father which didn't amount to a detriment for the plaintiffs stephen and all the debt that stephen agreed to share the repayment of with charles wasn't the dad on the recruitment property it was that that on the family farm so there's no what we're what we don't have years we have a disconnect between a benefit and a detriment when when plaintiffs even agree to share in that debt into repayment of the dead on the family farm he did benefit charles probably already had the had for decades three years and it didn't affect his leaned his head on recruitment property it didn't affect his ownership interest so stevens only benefit himself because he got an ownership interest in the family farm equal to the amount or the proportion of the debt he agreed to shoulder benefit or just the general unjust and ridged framework which is also quoted in the health care case it's where the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plate this detriment and the restatement of expense of the claimant so there's a connection between the detriment on the one hand and the benefit on the other and we don't have that connection here at all the benefit was conferred by the father on the recouping property and that didn't affect stephens where al at all stephen trick on a debt that didn't benefit and paid off part of that that we didn't benefit charles at all there are two separate transactions and there's been no authority cited this court for commending the two transactions as if they were one the restatement describes many scenarios where a mistake or an injustice or a fraud results in one party paying money that benefits the defendant you know with a plaintive mistakenly pays off the incumbent on a piece of land thinking it was his well that plaintiff has the i just enrichment cla unjust enrichment is not intended and i as a matter of law may not be a surrogate for a breach of contract claim or a fraudulent dusun play neither of which is supported by the facts here farm yet keep the family far that would be an injustice to rewrite history and yet allowed to keep the farm it would be imposing on charles a debt he never agreed to i think councils mistaken about these side really believe that the only issue the only actual issue before the court is whether this in effect payment of half of the two hundred fifty thousand the went to five pounds whether that is just or whether it's not the matter of the express agreement i don't think it changes that fundamental issue because steve cole the plaintiff did not make an express agreement to pay off half of the money that went to the farm  the i meet he knew it and it was part of what the bank insisted on and it was he went along with it and so so really his complaint is that with that was more than thirty six thousand dollars of those well the larger death yeah i mean it was no longer a legal debt the judge charles couldn't have been taken to court to pay to pay this other two hundred fifty thousand on him on it was it would have been we say it would have been just for him to pay for his own farm and not have steve pay for half of it and i really do believe that that is the only actual issue that needs to be determined and if the determination is there's nothing unjust about telling steve you've got did not know about i don't know that yeah i mean i've got no proof that he did do it and so it is not this is not he didn't say anything about it it's conceivable just hypothetically yeah he might have known about it but i got no evidence that we have a way of that and i think that if if the provable facts were that he knew all about that and kept it quiet did you might be able to make something of  of of a kind of fraud by by silence in a situation like that but i don't have any evidence of that so so i believe that the issue is  think that before the court is this question of whether or not this is perfectly just for steven to pay this half of this two hundred fifty or that there's something on just about it and if there's something on just about a case that charles has some benefits and that those benefits are unjust enrichment and education could be sent back to determine how we figure