review and i found a case that stated that when it comes to the burden of proof and whether or not the claim to enter a party prove their burden of proof it's typically a question fact and that's what typically be honor and the same time that they still had to review whether or not the party that was advocating for that relief had fact met their burden and that's where i believe this case can also be a practical to our situation but regardless of that i'm also here to argue that even if this court finds the manifest weight of the evidence standard of review applies more or less finding you should still be an attorney in favor of that all of those suggestions were flatly denied but then let's take a look at the heritage that letter that said this resignation will not be effective until two weeks from now so between so technically then we could look at it is you have to get through the two weeks until it was anything other than a conditional resignation correct and wasn't timetable and the reason for that was first they presented her with multiple options to current correct the problem she had identified none of these options were acceptable to her which you could just argue that she kind of put the resignation into play was starting to bad mouth the facility she was engaging in behaviors that were not conducive to the big day to day business of providing skilled care to the elderly in the community so affected when she terminated herself she resigned herself she shortly door which is what the trial court from correct i don't fortunately we don't have much by way of the trial court order the trial court order more clearly found that we just did not want the burden of proof when it came letter right she also testified that the director of nursing did not want to accept the letter of resignation additionally when it comes to their prior he testified that his knowledge of her being terminated was from additionally he testified that if he had known about the resignation letter he probably would have come to a different conclusion contention here is that all of this evidence when taken in context it shows that even though you may have asked her to leave soon in the two week period of time she still intended to resign and by her actions effectuated that resignation in this case the facility had to protect its other interests mainly the life and safety of other residents in the facility and just could not put itself in a position where they could not trust the person that they are required provide who care which as i am quite a person in the nursing home moral here is actually a really important issue for all of these facilities so i can absolutely understand that in this case that the defendant had already found a new job prior to submitting the letter of resignation in this case the snelson couldn't find a job till three months after she left the  give any weight to this case certainly does i actually don't think they're that far apart i believe there are some serious concerns when it comes to the testimony that she was forced or asked to write this letter first off her testimony didn't say that she should write a letter of resignation it said that she was asked to write a letter outlining her concerns that even assuming that that testimony was correct i think it's important in  case and in light of my argument to consider too that the trial court made essentially two rulings one of there wasn't in forceful contract and two that there was no resignation i think that we need to look at the first ruling that there was an abortion will contract in a necessarily to find that she would have been subject to this agreement hair either she resigned the trial court had to doubt this now since testimony under oath that no determination you know so little is in my argument is here that the manifest weight of the evidence call that trial court determination into question because the trial of her terminations really wants to have it both ways she's truthful when it comes to i was forced to write this letter and the record shows that she's the only one testified to that fact and the track record is also trying to say but she wasn't truthful when it comes to which contract and i think that's a great issue that there was testimony back it was the nursing home itself the management structure there saying we are given the resources we need so even to write this letter to upper management basically saying i don't care manager said that she was fired for cause i've always said well she resigned but then they will fall back on this well she's being destructive so we had to let her go you know if somebody is being i mean what are they supposed to do if somebody but again all that stuff is really explained and supported when you look at the evidence and you say wall her granted men told her to do this and so she did what her managers told her now you can say well that press a couple of the final points counsel first we heard the word worship a lot and i think it's important to keep in mind that the only testimony the only evidence in important to keep in mind that this exactly does fit the manifest weight of the evidence standard there are serious questions as to whether or not manifest weight of the evidence truly supports that determination that  asked to write a letter to ask for more resources which is clearly very different to pull through or to fix things and then i think it's also important when looking at the issue with the two different versions of the asked to be let out of the buyout mr thompson's testimony he stated the moment she handed me the resignation letter she asked me to be let out a buyout i think it's important to keep that in mind too when reviewing the trial