regards to jurisdiction we believe that under illinois supreme court rule three hundred and one all final judgments are appealable in civil cases as a matter of right we believe that this is the final man are just  we well in response to that justice i would say that we're not required to appeal the the st dismissal just like we are not required to appeal any decision of any court  certainly if we were going to follow through with that option we would have had thirty days to appeal but it was dismissed without prejudice and we did make efforts to  portion of the decision would lend itself to our opportunity to to go ahead in infile a modified complaint there was no objection to the filing of that thank you so there are two issues presented in this appeal the st issue is whether the trial court erred by dismissing the trustees complaint for declaratory judgment that was filed on march  thousand each teen the nd issue is of course whether or not this court has jurisdiction to proceed with this appeal i will attempt to address both of these issues in my initial argument as to issue number dismissal generally at that stage of the proceedings illinois courts have have not required plaintiffs to to try their cases they only have to allege sufficient facts necessary to sustain a cause of that action and we we believe that we did under our two count complaint so the cause of action that we've alleged is pursuant to also are very adamant that the rules of construction support the palettes appellants interpretation of the trust provisions the primary goal of course is to give a fa to the on the wishes and desires of the cast daters we think that the trust is clear and unambiguous and there is no need for any extraneous or extreme think evidence to be utilized to interpret the trust related provision the law sent since the trust is so clear let me this trial judge zero then on no one may file instigate a claim in a court of law suit in the circuit court that's generally why people set up trusts is to avoid this kind of stuff stay out of court room right how did that why did the what was it about the the the role of the trustee and the duties and obligations of the trust here set forth in primarily two articles we have article fourteen and then we have article six sections or e primarily so what the trial court is they took our he took the judge took two thousand and twenty five words out of context he took he used those words without wood with out any reference to any other provision of the trust and by relying on those particular words what he did was he invalidated the provisions of the trust assets along with all the state law provisions under the code in anything else you might need to administer this estate there is also the provisions in article six that directs her specifically so by saying no you st have to go to a special co trustee and he's going to result will those issues you've invalidated those provisions of the trust because you've taken those those pieces of authority away from  their trustee the the adelies have been very disingenuous in their approach by claiming that by virtue of the fact that this trustee is also  beneficiary that there's automatically a claim of self dealing in conflict of interest that should be associated with any decisions that she might make however once again getting back to the rules of construction mr and mrs delane bag of course were clearly aware that they have appointed their daughter as trustee that she was their daughter and that she was also a little beneficiary and if they believe by virtue of that appointment that they created a conflict of interest that karen was unable to in to properly adhere to their wishes or properly value and trial court's ruling violates the rules of construction in fact invalidated several provisions that clearly the dylan backs wanted in their trust and was read in isolation there's also been no proof that the financial resources of the trust are in any way at risk and as to value lation the special co trustee is only to be involved in valuing if the valuation of an asset is not readily ascertainable so large embedded so that what so why are you filing why is the trustee filing suit normally we see these cases somebody is complaining simply wants to follow through and wrap a trust related business the way her parents wanted things to be handled and that's why she took the initiative she could have sat back and let this go on for years this trustee is running farms she's doing outdoor work she has made you know repairs to all kinds of things this is then her life for almost four years now she wants to wrap up trust related business so that everybody has what her parents wanted them to have and that's why she filed suit because the  most important issue to address st is the jurisdiction of this court over this appeal you know karen has directed the court to the substance of the order claiming that the substance is what makes that final yet if you look at the history of this case as i'm sure you all have so you're certainly welcome to interrupt me anytime but the trial court karen literally made the same argument to the trial court four different times and the trial judge made the same substance at ruling four different just interrupt if after the st good while of the st motion to reconsider yes thirty days later didn't the trial court lose jurisdiction and nothing else was fine judgment in the case you cannot file an amended complaint or karen doesn't like to admit it's an amended she says it's just another complaint you can't file another complaint after a final judgment in a case unless there's at least lead from court which  she today again has stated that we didn't argue that the trial court level and therefore we waived it but as i'm sure that you're aware having looked over the record the dismissal was without prejudice no one was treating it as a final order at that time but the fact of the matter is so there's no reason that we want to waive or raise that issue at that time but the fact of the matter is that jurisdiction can be raised at any time it is not something that can be waived she did not bring up this issue that was a final an appeal there is no jurisdiction to hear it because she should have appealed within thirty days of that january two thousand and eighteen ordered and i am the st motion to reconsider and so that is why our opinion is that there is no jurisdiction respectfully to hear this they are contrary to the hatch trust document which is what happened in this case article fourteen section one asked the trust is what gives the trustee authority to commence or defend let it be a shot and court but everyone has to run their claim your special co trustee get authority get permission to file in court however getting a special co trustee is permission to file a court doesn't protect anyone from being disinherited and so that is  clear i think clear language of the trust reading all three of those sections together as a whole and that's how you get to protecting the wishes and entrusts of mrs mit and mr dillon back because it s seems like today the trust us arguing that her authority is what's supposed to be protected this is taking up the word for the purpose of the trust isn't to protect the power and authority of the trustee it's to maintain and protect the wishes  list dismissed without prejudice therefore we had the opportunity to either elect to appeal after a motion to reconsider was filed or to proceed to keep intentionally file a motion so that that's what we attempted to do rather than to appeal the decision to the appellate court i don't again i don't think we were required to do that  prejudice is well but at that juncture we found that there was nothing that we can do to correct any technical the facts in the pleadings because the arguments the st complaint was based solely on article fifteen authority has trustee is now what she cares about what she cares about are the wishes of her parents and her parents wishes were that she was the trustee that she that particular provision has an avenue as to how it comes into play once again the financial resources of the trust path to be at risk it doesn't just trustee special co trustee can make do sherman nation that is binding in non reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction and i don't think that's what they whine it when they  put the language in article fifteen section twenty one that only a court of competent jurisdiction is to make decisions in regards to the no contest clive so i'd like to go back just a minute and ask you to explain to help the order that you're appealing from is a final order it was left out prejudice how is that a final or because the nd complaint that was filed by cameron in march of two thousand each team we have found that the without prejudice language was nothing more than herbage initially we that we need another court a higher court to review this trust in a good decision as to what is actually required by mr and mrs dillon back and we believe that that karen proceed to value assets as they have designated in article fourteen in article six so you didn't ask for a tree up or a finding what made this a final order we believe this case fell within the exception of three o four b wine that is in say a similar proceeding similar to an estate related matter it's a trust it's now a publicly kind of a related trust and it was it was initially supposed to be privately administered now especially in light of the fact that we have a requirement for a special co trustee it's sufficiently public that we believe it was outside the scope of this real one finding can you explain that i don't understand how it got to be  well it got to be public because in arias to metion rulings were made in regards to interpretation of trust language requirements of the trustee in order to submit matters to the special co trustee were made it is now a court related matter in so i believe there is case law that says requesting an accounting by an executor is enough to make something publicly administered removing an executor adding an executor that's enough to make it publicly administered when it comes to wills and estate related matters and we certainly believe that all the litigation that's that's been set forth in these proceedings falls well beyond that scope there is no case law that says anything a litigation has to be extensive or substantial just enough that it becomes a publicly administered matter of thank you