individual by that individual as a corporation or partnership or trustee and ask the court if i can have certain relief the court would respond to me immediately i can't give you any relief that correct that is correct that is because she was not a party and so it was not it was deemed not necessary for her to file a motion to dismiss she was never named in any of the petitions filed by mistake or  although they are happily would try to have you believe the opposite if you go through all of the pleadings in this case there is not a single pleading not a single response a pleading in which the trustee is responding every single pleading  was filed their asking the executor to sell certain real estate and the executor filed a response in the response she referred to the trustee as had as being in control of this property which was in canada she referred to the canadian property as not being subject to the jurisdiction of a court but being because it is located in canada but she never filed a response the trustee never filed a response the execut filed a response you referred to herself as executor executor trust the response was filed by the executor to a petition that was filed asking the executor for release the body of the response may have referred to herself as also the trustee but it was not signed why she refers to herself as the trustee and the matter is involved the trustee it's your argument then pick why she wasn't made up party is the trustee that she didn't submit herself to the jurisdiction of the court that's my position you can't find the one case in america that says it can't be because if it would it would be it would be i think beyond due process it would be a violation that they would be treated one in the same as he's applying research inc which was one of their subsidiaries the supreme court held that any order judgment order entered in that case was not was and now any s to hazeltine cooperation the response of pleading was filed by the executor and mentions the trustee w had title to this canadian real estate so miss hines and as executor had to refer i think it was only logical and necessary for her to refer to the fact that this property is owned by the situation in this case as the trustee or herself file a response of pleading and that's what section sued s three zero one requires well yes he i think it is a respons but she doesn't sign back response of pleading or any response of pleading and this cause has trustee she has never the trustee has never had a petition filed against her in this case the only petitions that have been filed have been filed against the executor as i being repetitive but if he has come to support this very in this case without referring to the trustee because the trustee o in the state of illinois the sale of me the assets the canadian property obviously is a canada and there is an ancillary administration there as i understand it that the canadian party could not be placed into the trust not into the trust and it was the proceeds of the state that the court had jurisdiction over if not the trust as you're saying that no document was ever filed in the name of the trustee so would that not then subject line since accord had jurisdiction over the estate and over the execut that so the s s in canada that quote seeds of sale never came into the probate estate in illinois it went directly to the trustee so there were no assets over which the executor had had control they were all by the law of canada would not have recognized the deed into her trust right whatever required a probate so we open this probate estate merely to be able to happen in ancillary administration and canada so that we could sell it administer the property in canada otherwise this is a state in cook county had no assets and never has had any assets and when the proceeds of sale under l and i walk upon the first of all the property in canada became the property of the trust upon the death of and this is for my sister and that was ruled upon the week before it's in this case became the property of the trust not the property of the estate  asking a second thing and then your client ever become the trustee of these matters is i understand the written documents indicate amendment to the trust that changed the successor and successor trustee from wendy to christina and that's that the find of the record and this is not a part of the record in this case but there's no question that that but the mother did and that's where we that's where we are today eady and should be revoked thank you very much thank you part of my response but what was not mentioned at all is the fact that the the counsel repeated that he filed no response well section there was a case almost identical and it's facts where the public guardian wanted to establish a guardianship for the benefit of a ward and the ward it established a revokable trust prior to being declared a word and i at one of i think it was the brother stepped in front of the court and said i need a trustee of the trust don't appoint the public guardian appoint somebody else and let a later time that's all he did he said point they proceeded to appoint the public guardian at a later time when the public caribbean wanted to collect fees from that quote most of the trust the court said prior to gregory personal a jurisdiction it's highly important that your honors focus and a motion that was filed which is head of the record one twenty nine one thirty where it says now comes christina hines and this independent executor and as trustee of the backbone meister trust by her attorney well and so on and moves the court for instructions regarding the notice of attorneys late this was a corollary matter it was kind of sparring that was going at in that motion a motion sign filed by mr solomon he wants to say that there's the executor over here in the trustee is over here independent executor is prepared to make an interim distribution of twenty five thousand ballots from the trust to each of the residuary beneficiaries let me repeat that the independent executor is prepared to make an interim interim distribution i mean he would have you believe that there are two separate people they don't even know each other the fact is that all of the response of pleadings to the first set of motions to compel the sale she considered herself to pete the trustee and executor and this motion which is it's clear beyond a doubt in the group the agreed order that said that is pursuant to that motion this crisis coming to be executor and trustee is authorized to deposit the twenty five thousand dollars check as an interim distribution he is accepting the fact that he is the trial the the the lawyer for the was filed by him that was signed by this lawyer for the trustee has only has the man for as the lawyer for the executor so although that document that you reference not representing the trustee if that moment he's only representing the executor then where is the trustee doing in the body of the motion and as the palak ok she would basically be represented would beat up she would be nat she would be n happened at all and leave it there but the truth the funds were not in the trust how could the funds have been in the trust if if he's saying in this motion the independent executor is prepared to make an inner distribution of twenty five thousand dollars from the trust  jurisdiction by the consensual authority i will voluntary appearance i submit your honour's that everything that counsel did on behalf of the trustee was a voluntary appearance and he only decided at a later date to ra ruling should be upheld and bed it should be determined that the court did have jurisdiction over the trustee yes individually and as trustee so that's the distinguishing factor is a major distinguishing factor because he was named as a party as the justice pointed out in the motion for instructions regarding the attorney's lane it was signed by the executor the order of the agreed order was signed by the executor yes the executor or receive funds from the trustee to pay out because that was that was the previous motion that had been filed in order to to make a distribution and the executor or agreed to talk to the trustee herself get money from the trustee and make the distribution the services of the perk of the circuit court and a summons issued or filed a complaint against a trustee they never did they may seek to come in the back door with a gotcha kind of  to be done first of all you have to be named as a party the proceeding getting back to the proceeding on the for the attorneys lien it was a separate proceeding as the justices know in in probate as a little different than if you're in chance or in a lot of issues there are many different proceedings going on within the probate court could be a citation proceeding there could be a proceeding between the claimant and the executor there could be a supplementary proceeding all those proceedings are separate proceedings were separate articles one does not cross over the other the motion for instructions was filed with regard to a separate proceeding having to do with a prior petition proceeding if if the trustee has deemed to have somehow appeared in after seating it separate from this proceeding which is a petition to compel a further distribution filed a year later that has nothing to do with the pri document that was a separate proceeding and then the then once before the court today yes yes it's a separate proceeding it involved a prior petition that had been disposed of this is a new petition with different parties actually eric was no longer a party because he was seized and it was a separate petition proceeding in a parallel fashion with other matters that are going on in the end and that was in the probate proceeding but it's separate there's different parties mr hines and s trustee never filed in a parents never filed a response or pleading in this proceeding for sure and our position is she never filed a response of pleading any where she may have been referred to by the executor of necessity to tell the complete story but everything was filed and signed by the attorney for the executor or by me signs in his trust as executor or not as trust