looking to the court's order as the issue of damage just pacifically it is understandable on one sense to say that damages were difficult to calculate or damages were not proven sufficiently for the court in the sense because they would be too small because they have to be divided between the beneficiaries if you recall in this case there are three beneficiaries a j defendant and plaintiff and one of the court's complaints in its order was that the damages would have to be divided between them they'd be too difficult to calculate even if that is true it doesn't matter if the damages are too small as cited in flint vs vance all that case in fact was a wrongful dock case of a two week old baby in which the jury decided to award one dollar in damages and not awarded anything else because they did recognize that there was an issue of liability here here there were numerous instances of liability ranging from the failure to and twelve saying that the estate sale already occurred that is less than sixty days and that is a clear violation of the trust in failing to follow its trust terms but more importantly as well and not following the sixty day provision i believe that also shows bad lot of illinois a lot that has been very clear as to the issue of as the issue of  that is provided and also that is one of the factors that the court is supposed to consider in in a preacher fiduciary action and here there were no frank disclosures that were till even within the sixty days in october she was in park ridge illinois and she still was not allowed to see any of the trust personal property and was told if she even tries to do so or go to the real disclosures of all the information that it had and also make reasonable or adequate concert and that's what i was referring to without was that it was just that she was not she was she had told my client that the trust told her that she's alive the site everything and i also want to point out that in great versus creswick that was actually a case in which the trustee over a long period of time made the trust a lot of money but it was still found that he was not allowed to recover attorney's fees for technical pre a entirely avoidable all fifty thousand dollars real estate commission as well as seven thousand five hundred dollars his attorney's fees and even if that was done in good faith and annie and we actually did not dispute her selling it to herself over all this case it's own is important in showing that there was a preacher fiduciary duty no matter the size of the damages and that  allowing the trust to pay the defendant's legal fees and deny him the county this court should or from the lower court's judgment because the plaintiff cannot and heth identified as the court put it in the  concrete or credible evidence that the defendant actually breached their fiduciary duty as a successor of her mother's trust the trial court provided a comprehensive written this isn't based out the evidence that was presented in a two day trial and questioned whether is this suit was filed to settle a grievance or rather than to right or wrong you can was clear and concise as the truck course finding that the plaintiff was not credible and just each of those very quickly right now st there was the personal property issue the point of five years with the defendant failed to exercise good faith when distributing the personal property of the trust i recall three of the trust clearly laid to the residuary personal property is evidence alone that the defendant acted in bad faith there is evidence of this presented at the trial that the defendant and the plaintiff worst tried to work together to try to reside to try to resolve the distribution of personal property and i agree that it was not done within sixty days and in fact defendant knew from the camp from the correspondence back and forth with the plaintiff that they would never reach an agreement within sixty days and in fact the plaintiffs even stated at trial that she never believed that they would reach agreement so in seeing that there were going to come to an agreement she moved very quickly and swiftly to distribute the personal property sell her estate sale and distribute the proceeds to the three main beneficiaries of the trust defendant to purchase the property the real property from the trust three point three of the trust provided that authority well could argues that the defendant's purchase of the trust real property resulted in a loss to the trustee the fent actually argues that in fact there was a gain from way to sell the property in two thousand and fifteen as opposed to in two thousand and thirteen vending however the defendant did try to move swiftly and purchasing the property within twelve months of her mother's death she made an offer on the property to purchase the property based on an appraisal and the terms of three  three the trust pacifically state that the defendant could purchase the property for the fair market value and the way to determine a fair market value of the defendant determent was to obtain a phrase plaintiff objected to the in early two thousand and fifteen the defendant decided that the best course of action would be to list the property the trust of the trust real estate for sale with a real estate agent and missing the real estate the defendant did not  herself as a exception to the contract as far as there an exception to the buyers of the country because she was not intending to purchase the property her hole was that the pressure the tresco property it would recede and exceptional or a very high offer and that they would be able to sell it and distribute the proceeds testimony was provided at trial that there were a couple of offers but the defendant determin that these were not viable hours plaintiff i think really focused on price price price at the trial where the trial court i think focused on the testimony of the defendant that it was more than just a price that had to be the term you also in cash and they were able to close within two weeks yeah that offers had contingencies which it's just that a contingency they may not have been able  selling of the trust real estate the trust bank account plaintiff's argument that the defendant mismanaged the trust trust chase account is maris and the point is assertion that the bank account was not a gift demonstrates the frivolous nature of this appeal the trust chase bank account was provided for in the trust that it was to be used to pace expenses and the specific gifts in the trust and the balance would be given to the defendant for her years of service to her mother in addition i hope that trust account for that chase account i will call the trust account that chase account was a joint tenancy account held in in with the trust as one   stated that distribution the trust property actually on the death of wee either any questions with regards to the property before it damages damages how are they computed we don't believe that there was a breach of fish if you believe that the judge in the truck court made the correct ruling based on the evidence that was presented to them however damages looking at that if this court were to find that that was a breach fiduciary duty did the trial court error in or abused its discretion in determining that the damages were not supported by the plaintiff's concerns against the manifest where the evidence pointed to not proof did not provide any expert testimony any places on the personal property or any other documentation which the plant testified to to support her allegation that the shed damages with regard to the personal property plant testified that during the players discovery deposition place testified that she didn't know the value of the personal property at trial claim testified that the debt that they value the personal property was thirty illinois case found that the cost of litigation is true a trust in which there are at risk claims are paid by the trust the state is only when in that case that there is a breach and even a technical preached could cause that could result in attorneys he's not coming out of the trust there was no breach here so the defendant had the right pursuant to the churns of the trust seventy seven dollars of the trust to pay her attorney's fees to defend the trust to the buyer and seller in that case that was a perfectly good project so so he opposing counsel indicated that she was hoping for a better offers by excluding herself from it but that doesn't really make much sense because she did get better  offers he got better the actual uppers and still chose not to take that and after waiting several years and her reason for not taking the f h a backed off from the record was that it was going to take two ron and it was going to be too onerous but it but it wasn't another point that i want to also on top of that oppose because that they were never going to reach an agreement so the sixty day provision shouldn't matter even though it's a term that's clearly stated in the trust and even though a trustee is bound to the terms of the trust under illinois under illinois law however  that's that's speculative and just because parties don't like each other they still need to work with each other and in fact maybe if i say over my are which is this notion that the party still you know you you can deal with each other outside of the scope of your relationship but when you're in your