mother plaintiff should not have been barred from testifying to these conversations i specifically because she has sued the defendant in her individual capacity the matter stated in these conversations i had they been admitted would have created genuine issues of material fact that would have overcome summary judgment which interestingly is a point that was noted by the trial court in its opinion now you can see that note on pages one on one and one of two that is you agree that without testimony summary judgment was appropriate no i do does are certain testimony i regarding certain conversations with the ceased persons act it is limited in its scope and application i'm sorry was issued that it's certainly not designed to harm a living person such as the plaintiff when she claim at least what we have is an individual point of seeing an individual defendant for damages that's the distinction here between the two so it's your position especially on support of all that's correct and that's why actually we mentioned different situation than we have here where we have a defendant i'm sorry point of present received anything at all she gets nothing if this will probably get the two thousand two wells probated she gets nothing she's not trying to enforce anything that she received under the same or under the well what understand it that will be probated everything would be transferred in this case to the defendants and she happens to get everything under the two thousand if you will which is completely consistent with the one sudden well and then subsequently to that the claim for damages would be enforced against the completely independent counts from each other different recoveries different defendants different claims altogether just the same set of facts and that's ok that's what the supreme court set top and i think it is important to no suppose that that's a possibility that if there are potential conversations with the see such truths but i don't think that every single situation where there was a will or someone was either disinherited receive less than they thought they were going to that they would have enough evidence or enough destroy that will by by the testimony of a wrong beneficiary as to a conversation between her seat the whole idea of will be thrown out the window or i i think it labels labels are important i don't want to give them too much importance but i think that it's clear here that if we're suing her for conduct as an individual that's clearly different than sooner her conduct in her role without the assistance or direction of the defendant is she using her own independen highlight the fact that there is no real contest of relevant facts and i'm simply highlighting that but you bring you right to the point which is everything that i was about to go through there is no contest we have here a situation where independent persons determine the validity of the will by witnessing it in front of each other satisfying all requirements under illinois law they did so without any interference presence or otherwise direction from the you deny the motion for summary judgment you go ahead it ever hearing of the on the evidence but only if there is the other side and only if those facts that are just close or don't make a difference of there's the other side you just told us that if we hear both the dead man's act is not apply there was no issue of fact in this case that's correct  is immaterial and irrelevant then it is not a fact that is material to this case and so forth the fact that there was one child that has pressured the contact with she had her happening that talks about her having conversations with her that is true it doesn't say what those conversations were about in fact if anything those that affidavit indicates that there was an absence of any discussion on th statement and that for that reason among others makes it irrelevant to the question of whether or not david is relevant but as it happens the dead man's act does apply to this situation and that there are essentially four or five individual statements that directly attempt to address issues one of which i believe is the effort by my client by that this by the defendant to put some sort of obstacle between herself and the plaintiff but even on that point the court noted that that seems to be an irrelevant issue because she clearly had access to her mother the very same affidavit indicates that she was having regular contact with her so again by definition by the plain language of the statute it remains the statute it remains the rule of evidence by which the sport must make its rulings and in doing so there really cannot be any distinction between the court allowed the plaintiff to dismiss the suit against the executives but keep the suit against the individual that was in it if that was a case that was explicitly and the difference is the plaintiff in this case when faced with the clear evidence to show that there is no lack of attempts to obtain the exact same result by claiming undue influence but still trying to parse that further tries to establish that undue influence some now outside entirely of the will and the estate process it is different precisely because she does not succeed without that testamentary device it's very similar to by test eight or on but outside of that period claiming that somehow that item that act was different from the way we handle a will yes there are differences in the way execution works yes there are differences and different circumstances under which one might test it but the result is exactly the same it really is attempting to call something else the exact same thing we have these two items specifically identified in a will in the one nine hundred ninety seven there is a change that change is a stablished and it is there is nothing that the plaintiff has said there's nothing in the affidavit there's nothing in the evidence to show that those two assets in particular were in any way changed as a result of the defendant conduct in this case they cannot point to any effort by the defendant to go with the mother down to the bank and change the oh the the registration card on the cd there is no effort even though that was clearly shown in the evidence to occur prior to the execution of the two thousand and two well there is no effort to deny that even by the understanding that property should have been received by eat again that's a factual issue that we don't need to get into but at the end of the day it is exactly the same process it's exact same result but trying to achieve it by going through a different and there may be limits in fact there will be limits on the way that testimony of the goodman's act does apply but the bedpan say lies under just about any situation in which the plaintiff is suing or defending that capacity parent that has been appropriately documented in the past the testimony of a third party who is not interested in this case in that case that is what the statute says both mom's going to give me anything i better have her write it out and sign it is it is all senate to her deceased mother that the plaintiff only would show up and visit her mother because she wanted money any untrue statements regarding the basis for why plaintiff would show up with their mother clearly would be an another party like point about her motives for visiting her mother such that it would influence her to change her estate planning when statements are made by that by the daughter under vacation that the current well that she has that happens to leave items to the not but i do know that according to the elements that are laid out at a minimum the statements are made in the affidavit should defeat summary judgment if this is a credibility issue if it's not sufficient to convince a jury later on that's for the jury to