relation to a matter that this court had previously decide the issue before the court is whether the award of fifteen thousand three hundred dollars to my client roy man an fundamental according to all of the cases that all of us have cited in this in this in the breeze but if there is no ambiguity in the trust in a matter for trust construction the issue in this case is when the partition action was tried the party stipulated in agree that there was no ambiguity this court in its opinion that matter was appealing to this court who trial courts construction of the trusts and this court made a specific finding that the parties and so stipulated and then again no ambiguity in existed in the trust when the case with back my client one man filed the petition for fees he did so on the basis that he was representing the trust because the then he was sued as trustee of the partition action the place of the trustee as the trustee itself filed no action no briefs in this court regarding the issue so yes he did see fees as truck as acting in the place of the  memorandum and that entire brief that with the issue of the construction of the trust quite frankly if if that was the basis upon which roy's fees were being awarded which was not the basis upon which they were sought and one can certainly take the position that he is in error in seeking fees on the basis the was defending the trust but that was never contested in the lower court by the apple lease but apparently not considered  should of defending the trust ok and so what is the legal basis for awarding fees to him the legal basis is that he was defending the trust and asking for the continued existence of the trust in his position in the court and it's an equitable is it becomes that beautiful argument more than a legal argument i grant you that but i get that issue and i think quite frankly back on the basis of the trial court granted inconsistent with the position we took in the trial court regarding fees and it's in the distance roy has never taken the position that fees should be awarded because there was an ambiguity in the trust  me because here in my line of vision when i see facial reactions and see if you could refrain from that and i require them to do the same when you're in after roy was removed as trustee he continued to litigate you have said that that was because the real trustee the replacement successor trustee was not doing anything but he continued to litigate when he was no longer trusting correct that that's correct he did because he also had an individual interest in assuring his position was litigate in the end his position individually was consistent with defending the trust it's perhaps incidentally but it was in fact consistent with defending the trust was that the  grandchildren of land enable man had an interest in this trust that position was upheld of the proper order and this court reversed it and that's it you're not going to take a chance and that's that's exactly what happened so argued there were two possibilities because they feed titian of the apple lisas filed the petition actually that first i thought they were seeking fees as part of the partition act that's been conceded in their response three that the petition act is not a basis for their fees the only basis is for the construction of the trust see in fees to reimburse them the cost of doing that if that's the only basis is our argument that the entire the then when the fees are awarded his counterpart is awarded eighty six thousand dollars in fees for exactly the same process for which he was ordered fifteen thousand dollars in fees of which twenty six hundred was transcripts which it was  will today we i have heard some new arguments by mr bowling this is the first time he's asked for his fees to be reversed and that's a very interesting concession on his part because you can't ask for something in the trial court get it and then say oh i made a mistake by this personally or my my question noticed before it was before i took notes that was at the very end he said it earlier he said as a matter of fact that it was wrong doesn't make any sense to me i've never understood it he said fees in his brief in his brief he says he has been fishing at the fees were expended for the benefit of the trust by the time the justice mcdade was quite right by the time the fee issue arose it was two thousand and eleven six years after going to be interesting he was asking for fees for himself he was fighting this case always for himself this court construed the trust as this court said in its opinion that page nine but it may have to be construed because people disagreed on the meaning and that's what the case law says is it true though it had to be construed because of the partitioning it had to be construed because of the partition  whether it the criterion is whether an honest difference of opinion exists there certainly an honest difference of opinion i mean the three judges said you know what three sets of judges you had one they actually you're going to  we didn't we did not seek fees due to defect there was an ambiguity but it was because of construction in previously my opposing counsel his his argument the act that it really wasn't even about construction and now he says it was about construction the time effort and cetera that mr man as trustee stands and that was not taking into account court when it may just kick when he made his determination  that coupled with i guess the size of the what was going to happen there's as to that first notion to me it's very clear that mr mann was removed by the order of two thousand equally he was allowed to i guess be a caretaker until a replacement trustee was found a volunteer actually took over the office and that didn't take some time  things that that should have should have not come out trust a large payments to mr to the trustee direct this is all of the court took umbrage with when it made that when it issued the order in  going on with the court and isn't the trial court as a matter of equity the court was allowed to do that so i think that argument that was raised in the priest is a complete red herring in terms of other things that were we were the one smith of the court that was guarding the hen house guarding a fox in the house we were the one that had to be more vigilant because the very nature of what was the trip looking over the our case is much different because you're right there was uncertainty both in the trial court judges and with this and with this for the way i understand you and the honest difference of opinion is what defines and be so it's nice comparing about yours but this your case no interest in these talks about what is it it's an honest difference of opinion at the end of it all somebody can say here's exactly what it means very clearly for us but it's leading up to that and i think in this case there was an honest difference of opinion which was hotly contested so all this talk about ambiguity that was my question in this room is a one of the same or different underscoring that is there has never been an action filed in this case to construe this trust the partition action was filed and as a part of the petition action according to make a determination as to whether the grandchildren had lower court on one theory and they asked for on another theory to which roy they had objected in anyway wage his right to be in this court objecting to the word fee here and as i need to pick your argument what you're trying to say is an ambiguity is not defined as a simple disagreement absolutely i quit because because when people my children can fight over a