agree that the shares were at some point we were supposed to put into the trust and they were part of the truss and that was one of the complaints filed by one of one of my clients siblings that person precipitated all you know the probate would occasionally is one of the primary complaints but you know pursuant to the two barry james always prestige use of power to distribute the shares at any time prior to at any time during her lifetime as she saw fit as trustee that's part of the one of the the rights that she wants she was beneficiaries of the residuary trust and any time in from time to time during their lifetime all worst most of the principle of such trust as the trustee deems to be in their best interest is an acceleration process is a very common all disagreement as they did with now the provision about an appointed me they were in litigation occur and there and things of that nature but who in the past settle this dispute in the way they did if they didn't have that paragraph three power unappointed because essentially what mary jane did was she just said fine this is how i'm going to distribute it in effect and out we seen this in exchange that's correct but again she still fulfill her obligation as trustee because she could only if you actually look at because the transaction we did and how we actually occur my client got the shares before the loan came into existence that was a condition proceeding from the bank that had to go down that way the money that was in the state was simply to balance everybody out my friend got got the got the shares two for two million dollars each brother got two million dollars in cash there just wasn't enough he had to give the whole two million dollars pay the transaction cost tied up two hundred fifty i saw reference to it two hundred fifty thousand dollars one year or something like that but at the same time each of these three children were receiving sixty five thousand dollars a year whether they were there or not correct that's correct  paying capital gains on six million dollars so why she didn't have to pay taxes at the time i don't think it was a test will better how much two brothers the brothers didn't receive the stock brothers received approximately another three point six million dollars they were off by ten thousand dollars all that money came into this closing in paid out lots of different people can you walk away from the closing from the purchase and sale with all the thousand or is that ten percent not that one percent is merely property so how can this property be near it's not the proportionality the issue is whether or of after the issue when it says something to the extent that the miracle estate replace any portion of the loan get should be considered a contribution from the state and would be paid back there was nothing with three point six million dollars was again this is purchase money this is fresh money that's with this new statutes talking about it during the marriage and will often borrow money and it's fresh money what is the characterization of that i think they could just it all property part of my spouse a spouse by the sole use of not marital property collateral that seems to be a rather significant issue still look to what the current state of the law is to make to see the intent here to see what the issue could be and how it could be resolved that best corrected the cases that we state cases that doesn't create any rights what he signed a personal guarantee when he testified at trial was worthless because he didn't know anything this was the third or fourth later of where'll behind the stock the equipment the accounts receivable late insurance policies of my client guy what was what was at risk the notion that we can create something that seven million dollars for the marital property could be created by signing  but that doesn't exist anymore and that wasn't part of this process that's correct and there's nothing in the will or the trust that required caffeine or similar or her two brothers to receive a third of all said and that ok do you want to run the business anymore or run the business will do it this way would it be would that be pure inheritance even if there was a transfer of money for the shares in other words is believe it should be for the russians thanks very much for your time of today far exceed those of jim pappas he found her income to be for four hundred twenty two thousand dollars a year or jim's income was seventy one without overtime one hundred two with overtime he's working as a but every other factor under five a three d didn't change the gin is the weaker party this guy's down now and it's just not equitable to limit him to twenty nine percent of the middle state should would give the weaker party twenty nine percent of the mirror of the state under these circumstances and absolutely not in any case it would be a fifty fifty distribution at worst a sixty forty distribution seventy thirty it's a negative aspect so is as counsel indicated there were other distributions before this final distribution that went to parker pieces of property that had been sold or resign before he actual