was the right person to be making those types of decisions based on the fact that she admitted that she didn't have much experience running a farm the brother did and that their son did it and that she didn't have a and running a business is two different things and that's where the difference was with the new vision in the corporation and having to change things up this is more satisfying to the plaintiff that the corporation and the pharmacy call it was going bankrupt your quicken your statements the knowledge at that time wasn't we can point to the plaintiff made three hundred thousand for the corporation for a in my opinion goes here get it done this one goes here gets goofy will never says a word about balancing the hardships as or will he didn't consider the evidence because if you would have to consider the evidence here form geneva wise her and her husband started this particular corporation more than forty years ago the group ration owns hundreds of acres not quite a thousand acres of land they and his son gary wise were together and formed a lot of other acreage on a ship roughing basis where they were getting two thirds and those landowners were getting one third which is the agreement that was reached by the defendants in this particular case now mr weiss eugene weiss died in june of twenty six twenty sixteen not long after that point in time a dispute arose within the next year between the plaintiffs and his sister ms marks in this particular case the dispute primarily surrounded little bit of background in for nothing more and has nothing to do with with the case other than that it's been produced in discovery that was conducted since the preliminary injunction was entered  changing attorneys or why it was done there was a number of things in the justice in these cases it is really where the judge in the trial court is in a in a different position where they are able to watch witnesses and determine the credibility and see what's going on and that is that is something that i believe here is is priceless the testimony of geneva weiss gave on that particular afternoon clearly reflected that she didn't have for memory she didn't have she's been prior to that time prior to being her head and her son removed from the corporation was taken from a my client was removed but they were and he was present initially of this meeting told he was removed and asked to leave the meeting which he did since her husband's death in the struggle so we have the disenchanted sister who is taking who has a personal  against the point of my client and the first thing that she does is by god god mom's power of attorney now we're going to have a meeting and we're going to remove you and you're going to have nothing more to do with this farming operation so my client to this farm nonstop with his father and since he was a child farmed this farming operation with this father but nonstop since one thousand nine hundred one and has operated it has charged the corporation any of the income received by the corporation or lane it owns that the farms that he and his father from all of the corporation undefeated testimony was paid by the  wheat and one year worth of beans that were still be l that is grain so from sixteen and seventeen and and from seventeen on beans were being held in grain silos owned by the removed if you're familiar with forming the bins have had ventilation systems fans they must be run particularly once the weather starts to warm up a little bit throughout that entire period of time subsequent to my client's removal from and bar from coming onto the property of those fans were never run there's a good reason why that some of them we started to go bad now the eat properly care for ventilated  would never have occurred so again best bet is something that our position is additional ways for damages more now we have here before you today but that is something that is within our underlined complaint  that aspect money alone cannot fix this particular problem what with the defendants have done here is they've changed the entire characteristic of the corporation so it is normal or ongoing farming firm to getting one third you have a lot of equipment my client's testimony was that he and he alone operated and repaired and worked on and maintain seventeen it were threats values both wholesale value and average resale value and if you look at the testimony throughout the entire hearing  drill and there there was a tracker in a trailer those thirty two of those items have not yet been paid for so there is an agreement for sale that there's actually five not four in miss martha testified that it was her intention to sell off every last piece of equipment which is what exactly made this an emergency if the it was really just the sale of these several items of equipment one hundred thousand dollars you know you could probably get  come close to getting some of these things back which is the amount in the in the corporate accounts right now would be a little bit more than that but they could afford to do it if you look at the full sale values versus average retail values on that particular dollars per sale average resale twenty thousand five hundred dollars it was still for a blue both of those items were sold for twenty five thousand so a little less than what the average resale value was and by the way none of this was sold through any advertising or auction or anything else this was done solely through word of mouth these deals were forming a way and for the defendants knew some people who they thought might want to buy this they contacted him and dollars so there's probably more of a discrepancy there but if you look at some of the other items of equipment if you look at the tractors at the combine and everything else that the defendants of the testified that they want to sell of then you start getting the discrepancies of more than fifty thousand dollars just between the whole sale an average resale prices so when you start adding all of that off and then you try to come back and then decide ok we'll how much how much when it was lost and it was a question that was him asked of offended by myself and then there was how much was your net income what did you make and the answer was i don't know i don't have any of that information there is no she cannot stay here with the income was one when the plaintiff was operating the farm doing the farming versus what happened when she took over and by the americans going to lot of time getting  whole business different rule argument i think my brief adequately addresses that particular issue but that is an argument in this particular case none of you have to have a good faith basis through or judgment in order for the business judgment rule to see it in a lot of the business in a state board that i do on a regular basis you have disgruntled family members that is exactly what the case is here is that the father even within his trust there's there's a directive th operation has changed entirely and now you've got someone who wants to get all the money out of it and not read on in any inheritance let's let's sell it off it's distributed and then whatever we get from the ongoing farming is just fine but that is not the character of what the corporation was set up to do that was not the purpose of the corporation geneva those are hard cannot say much one way or another she has no independent say in this everything that is going being told to her in effect is testimony to this effect by ms marks is being told to her by ms marks one on one privately no one else in fact my client is unable to because this farm is no longer going to exist and we have if defendants have their way everything will be sold off quickly as possible distributed and then how can this form ever return to being a farming operation as a phone as opposed to just a share cropping landholder it can't be additional money that will be there to be able to do that the group ration does not have that much moral power to buy back over one point one million dollars worth of equipment so for all those reasons and and if you haven't the questions i've not addressed all of the elements of the case i believe that the synopsis i gave you the background on the facts as well as looking at at the appraised values that are from a towel by by the defendants i believe that all the elements are met and i believe judge grace went into great detail in his verbal decision addressing the parties at the conclusion of testimony as to why he was ruling the way he was ruling and i i do not believe that the court can find that there was a propose to order that was presented to him took more than just a few minutes looking at that before he signed it it wasn't something that he he has accepted and put his signature on i found him to be a very thorough judge a very complete judge a very fair judge and i believe he which were not attached to