twenty fourth two thousand and eight under the cases that have been cited by the defendant there are some he distinguishing issues first of all one of the cases that we cited mor margulis stands for the proposition that silence alone is sufficient to constitute fraudulent concealment where an attorney is representing a client because of the fiduciary relationship which  e second key thing here is we actually do have written evidence of an affirmative act of concealment which is alleged in paragraphs thirty and fifty nine of the complaint and that was that that the fed mr churchill stated in writing that he was not charging rent to the lane because she was the income beneficiary so clearly we have allegations here of fraudulent concealment elements are discussed in the key pieces the few would act which we cited in our brief then you consist of number one there being a journey client relationship or in some cases the person being an intended beneficiary both of those things are alleged number two a duty arising out of that relationship and the facts that we allege to give rise to that duty are a specific direction by martin bell house in the presence of his wife when both were joint state in this case the breach of that duty when the that breach occur initially when they had the discussion they were living in a house that was in the living bell house yet it had that prohibition written in there you can't charge rent but in the summer of two thousand and eight something's changed in their lives marvin head tank critic cancer had first been diagnosed in two thousand and three and things were getting worse and they came in that in the complaint as a result there was no recommendation of any amendment to the trust there was no discussion of there being a problem after they relayed this change in facts to mr churchill after day no one knew that there was a problem until in two thousand and when he decided he was going to charge grant which was directly contrary to what he had represented even after the two thousand man we didn't really get that far to the point where there were no depositions in this case no testimony they basically came in for a checkup and said this is a change in our lives so we did not allege that they specifically directed him to make a change groundhog day where you start over every time you meet with people and really establish who you are and what your goals are the tourney is should make those issues you know what the objectives are and when you come in for a follow up you look at what's changed and then circle back and look at the objectives and see if that those objectives are still being met in this case the lower court judge i think made a critical error and and concluded that that attorney churchill had forgot the direction that was given to him in two thousand and three and then took the further step that that you know forgetfulness was justified in this case and here we have to take all are the decisions that he forgot is absolutely turning that law on its head it's taking the inferences in favor of the defendant and we have to presume for purposes motion he knew in two thousand and eight that there are objective of as stated before was still and force that they did not want her to have a run following his death a few years and bright orange letters on the front of the file and we have to presume all reasonable inferences in respect to his client in regard to set these final visits in the state when that is our intention and we intend to call experts if we are able to get that far and talk about our stay playing attorneys focus on what in strange look at the old judges look at the documents when they're doing a check up with a client and we course never were able to get that far so i went through a examples in my reply brief that focused on that issue is it ok to ignore what was told you before when you're going for a follow up visit in the first one of those examples i gave was a married couple coming in to an estate planning attorney indicating that they want to leave a third of their assets to the grandchildren living at the site and a few of them back in two thousand and three at the first visit and also at that two thousand three  telling the safe planning attorney we have one of our children has a step child that we do not like we don't want him to get anything whatsoever and the attorney grabs a document that basically just leaves the grandchildren good now that's the only fact this change since we met before and he fails to ascertain that objective fails to circle back to the diligence and so i think most people would consider that eternity job of trying to carry out the intention of the seasons was breached here and maybe now when the original document was drafted maybe if ector late at that time reflected the intention but in light of facts that came to the knowledge of the attorney later did not so that's one example the other example i gave was one following a tax issue where in my hypothetical in two thousand and four client goes in and wants to leave assets to grand grandchildren and says i don't want to a generation's giving tax they think i'm a dollar amount that will be ok within the law in two thousand and thirteen is changed and they come back t if the attorney violated the standard of care but for purposes of this deal we're looking at the pleadings alone do the pleadings have allegations that under the facts most favorably developed under those inferred in favor of the plaintiff could support a case of malpractise is there any chance at all that facts could be proven under these allegations that would show malpractise and that's what the supreme court ogilvy's looked at is there any chance at all that that could happen client relationship like we allege if we got the trial the court found out that she wasn't the client that still there would be an intended beneficiary who was who did not receive what she was in title to but for my name is jack russell i'm here on behalf of mr churchill an opportunity to try to plead something that would excuse the statute of limitations and they failed in that also they attempt to do alleged fraud i and the allegations of roger monk concealment especially detrimental reliance by the plain aren't there they are just not there there's no allegation  proper for interning under those circumstances to say i wonder if there's something in those documents from five years ago that i should check out and the client for ten hours of reviewing the file when they didn't ask or i think you'd be in trouble   allegations that would create a duty in other words what our client is making the request of the lawyer to track something out in the lawyer except that request that's what creates the duty for the  same goals with regard to both of those  i think they tried to do that when they said that marvin told mr churchill that he doesn't want his wife to pay any rent i think that's what he was trying to please it's poorly planned but he would they were trying to do it ok but then why don't they allege that the trust were prepared wrong in two thousand and three because they weren't prepared out what the import of the drafting of these two trusts man as far as the ability to charge rent that would be an extremely difficult standard burn to put on ordinary lay people where we've had four judges look at the issue of whether or not rand could be charged by mr churchill under the family trust and this very situation in the vision case two of those judges said that he could charge or rent or victor two judges so that he could do this first the lower court judge found in our favor in the eviction case that you could not charge for it and if you're from the property and then it was a two to one decision of this court to justice is finding that he had the power as trustee to do that and one not so if you know four members of the judiciary can all agree on it how is it that these ordinary lay people are able to do that when we get to trial we're going to show his educational background all those things but i don't think that we all have to be smarter than all the lawyers that do have clients have that bird  second thing is we did allege in paragraph seventeen of the complaint that when they met with mr churchill in the summer of two thousand and eight they were seeking his advice regarding their mutual estate planning goals and told him what it changed so they tell him hey here is this trust and here's this trust and this one has this language and this doesn't you know i don't know if we can i also stated in an oral argument on the motion that i could no less that think that martin repeated himself in two thousand and eight and said again i don't want to be charged any rate no matter what but he did say in two thousand and three it was understood the purpose of this motion we have to assume you remember it again we have this argument well he forgot and that should be ok we've got death are we have to take all inferences in favor of the plaintiff in this  so this categorical prohibition on rent you know that the goal was not changed at any time by mr bell house in terms of the standard of beauty that you would have you didn't have to do a lot of legal research or anything like that you just needed a very limited review here's what's changed ok they told me they're changing residences is there anything that's specific to a residence in here he probably could find it a little faster than they could looking through the documents since he drafted them he could check his notes from before did he do any of those things we will only know if this case is reversed and hopefully it will be and we can find out who really is entitle to do judgment in this case  but they did ask him you know to to comment on those issues at the time and it's quite possible quite possible for him to do that review right there while they're sitting there he could say you know what i want to take some time to review this and get back in touch with you now some of the other cases don't have those allegations so for example the right koski case that was cited that basically was  the issue of fraudulent concealment but you know in that case they didn't allege that the party was a an attorney find a relationship personifies here we did so we said that they meant to seek advice on their mutual estate planning