how to present the discourse the central issue in this case and occurred to me that if i were to walk into a sandwich shop and run into a lawyer and you would serve the nervousness a shuffle  a dark suit and understand what my afternoon had in store my talk about the keys a little bit and pot i would have said to him this is a case about the essence of trust law this is a case about trust law back to when they will go much further with that but perhaps ten minutes later counsel for the bag or some similarly situated up party could walk in and say i thought i've left i'm here to argue a income beneficiary and it's even more significantly a matter of trust law because this materially affects the trust the essence of the trust mr if you look at the right to receive info instead of receiving the income he received in the housing benefit namely the right to live in this home for his wife we have it's not just the property was held by a trustee it's not just the bank happened to be the trustee this went to his enjoyment of what he was supposed to get out of this trust was income and he had to deal with mr courted you to live in this home instead of receiving cash the old section one step many of the second restatements some of the fairly recent cases are still using restatement seconds but section seventy eight has a comment that seems to say everything that i've been trying to say it's mentioned in my relationships for example business partners have a fiduciary relationship not to misappropriate business opportunities will compete with the partnership but the duty of loyalty here is even summary judgment and of only in with sparse record i can feel that on the first of all there's some concern that the house will not be ready because you see another house on the property that has been idle for significant periods of time but the this but once the bank you know and there's a dispute whether that was pretextual whether they really were concerned there is some you know there's a parallel action right now with the bank and suggested that there were some terrible forfeit trust is protect the beneficiaries interest and beneficiaries may be young they may be infirm and may have limited experience with money for any of these reasons they might need somebody in a corporate f doesn't have the ability to just remove the trustee as we're learning in the and pay in haste it can be very difficult now before i go much further i want to take one last effort and i'm going to go back to justi and part of it states that speaking of the dish your duties not honesty alone but the public killing of an honor most sensitive is that the standard of behavior as a listener is developed a tradition that is owed by the bank to and refuelling are two motions here filed by the bank that i want to refer to because i think it's important to respond to them i understood they were going to be taken with the case they've checked into us referring to mr corey you as a trustee officer and he was by i think every mission the president of the bank he was named to the respective havens wills as an executor and as a trustee and he met with official areas at his office in the bank and basically handled trust matters while sitting in the bank while being the president of the bank there was no chinese wall no effort to somehow say well i'm a trustee when i work out of you know my downtown office but now when i work at my bank office ah there is no statutory reve in how more definition of a trust office or that you can say that he somehow feels to me this is the description these are as it is that applied to this man and his conduct with respect to the trust there's another issue that's been raised and again  if i did rather follow the rules i apologize but i am attached and motion filed by the bank in the what i'll call the removal and the county proceeding which was the bank f decided seems to apply the both and then you get in the similarity of parties and things like that and there was overlap sufficient and point is they are viewed one thing in that case which is basically it's the same action and the argued something else in this case which is the rules that you're trying to apply here don't apply to this action now what who am i trying to apply will mainly there is this  people that didn't like at houston anymore said oh wait that's not in writing statute or for us illinois supreme court said null or all interest in real estate are a forcible in equity gentle there was a confidential relationship the husband wife relationship the husband got the wife to sign away basically her right to alimony and didn't disclose that well because another words the trustee relationship is controlling trying to use the statute of frauds to somehow circumvent his or her promise is not effective through this any questions i'd be happy to try to answer  or president of the by a person who managed trust in the states so we would think that on these facts even if the court chooses to apply the equable style arguments from the analysis that we would be satisfied all this using the say or the issue in this case is relatively simple it's a forcible entry into tain or case and as the courts of said time and time again the main issue in these cases is who is in title possession of the property at issue relationship not necessarily have a trust you have an executor's the that's correct and see it as much rights that property is given to you i don't trust documents and the trust pay the bank i guess saw it as an unnecessary stuff essentially what would be happening would be mr hewitt would be paying rent to the bank the bank would be turning right around and paying that r means of his income i'd like to start real briefly on the facts that did did lead to the circumstances where we're at in this case on august third two thousand and ten the bank discovered from a newspaper article in the local newspaper that the police found forty marijuana plants growing on the property the subject of trust not only with the growing on the property but the police said in the newspaper article that there were three rows of marijuana growing in the house two days later on august fifth twenty ten the bank took action in providing mr hewitt with a notice to vacate the property the bank thought we need from do something to protect this pro judgment from the truck work on august second twenty of them were we basically said we're going to assume for the purposes of summary judgment that the hewitt's were told they could live on this property for the rest or while the trial court started for the right to live on this property forever the rest of mr hugh let's life without any reasonable terms of conditions attached to it is living on the property and the cork rejected as i mentioned the will does not give henry the right essentially because the will does not give henry the right is that they have to look elsewhere for their possessions to give them a basis to continue possession so when they point to in their defense is this alleged statement simply nothing else other than the alleged vague oral statement that henry can live on property for the rest of his life on which is for their claim for possession in response to the arguments made by mr michael i'd like to make three points first if this recording you did make a statement which we can see for the purposes our motion that's the new creates only an at will tennessee mr nigel actually cites in his brief the case of american management consultant l l c versus or brought a forceful injury detainer action seeking payment of rent under the vague terms of this lease and the court said that well we don't think that you can enforce this lease because the statute frauds applies only to those situations where the parties have at a minimum an actual agreement as the wedding of the subject property was in force one the wall i don't think there's any dispute in this case that the oral statement made by mr corey you was and i would agree with you there are the terms of this works truly vague and absent definite and certain terms there there was no  well we couldn't the american management case through a clear distinction between cases or grant cases for possession you you're right you could not enforce the lease the election least where they were  in the american mansion in case the landlord was seeking to enforce the terms of the ways in this case the party seeking to enforce the terms of the lease are the defendants or the t have allegations supporting a claim or claiming promissory estoppel there's no facts in the records there's no allegation on record that would suggest that this is a case of equit and there was evidence that at the time he made the statement he knew the statute of fraud would prevent his agreement from being forced in this case there's no reason there's absolutely nothing in the record that would suggest that this record you knew that what he was sons are also beneficiaries of the trust when the bank learned that there was marijuana being grown on the property it was put in a difficult situation it could either take action to remove mr hewitt and the people he was allotted to grow marijuana on the property thereby protecting the property held by the trust from further damage by mr  hewitt or he could allow the circulatory man on the property allow the individual that was growing marijuana on the property and risk something happening to the property and face of grief you sure do claim for mr hewitt sons the bank is really caught in a to tough situation what the backside to do was to remove her six remove the person who was allowing over forty plants of marijuana to be grown on the property including inside the house  it is that's her job as a bank was entitle to do it shows the course of taking action necessary to protect or to reach the in service all that the us can reside on this property for the rest of mr hewitt's life without the attachment of any reasonable terms of conditions the trial court probably rejected these arguments and the absurd result sought outline another piece my understanding is that there are two tracks of property the one track is solely for farmland and the other track is what we're talking  is being paid if there is no well there is income being generated by the trust as i mentioned there are is another piece of property that's farmland that gets in your rants i believe there's also farmland on this other tract with this house is located that lacks annual rents for for farmland purposes at this time and the bank is renting out a large house to someone who is paying rent income is being arts were never in the big house the humans were always in the small house he was remaining in the small house at this time order was stated and frankly the bank doesn't necessarily have a problem with the fuel it's remaining in the house as long as they agree to some reasonable terms and conditions they can't have being in the house and they can't have marijuana growing in the house that's all that were  have you collected you're not i believe i have the you tube i'm looking at the portion of my brief discussing the notion of whether or not this qualifies as a use and i think i may have framed it better when i was writing than when i was speaking and i do believe that in order to trigger the forcible injury she contrary to in opposition to a common law of a lease it has some aspect involves people living in a home that they don't own the brother they have an interest in is trust beneficiaries i'd like to help her get a little better understanding of the facts  is a small house which we're talking about the twenty five acres of pasture which we're talking about that would leave approximately one hundred thirty acres from the gun and how the trailer which has nothing to do with today's action for the bank is now occupying the twenty five acres and i believe they may have a ten he was required to get rid of their of their cattle their donkey their their livestock as part of the mean we thought that there were reasonable terms in place previously i mean this is to say that this was some abstract there that there were there were terms reach when they moved in that they would make certain fruits of the house for which they would not be compensated for forced to leave they had some requirement not to tear up the place had there been something in the nature of a lease it probably would have bar illegal activity i want to go back to the newspaper article thing because i think that's kind of helling that reacting to only do a newspaper article can sometimes get one in trouble in my home how many there was an article that teenagers on graduation that somebody would put something in a newspaper article and the bank was probably on inquiry notice but then the treat all that is what they're up here arguing today is the you know if it goes to their state of knowledge when they filed with the delivering the first  the second notice to quit was given on march fifteenth two thousand and eleven and the earliest date that would have been the beginning of that these that term would have been two months after