with the lawyers who are going to orally step up and identify yourself for the record please we're not going to cut you off in mid sentence so don't worry about that but just keep an eye on the clock as you see it and you council have fifteen and you've been reserved here i would assume you'd like to reserve your response time to fill all those all three of or some other net or some other evil whether she was really talking about the early days or whether she may have changed from mine but all of that is speculation and unsupported suggestion the record all along and i think the trial court actually excepted the possibility that this could be a legitimate amendment to the trust if it had been properly prepared ok particular thing in the pearl river prepared to said you get too much cash what you really need to do is to reduce your cash and increase your holdings in bonds and stocks is not just what this is a crisis of by the circumstances surrounding the execution the circumstances in this case are that the nephews she wanted the assets to go to her or the hurleys there is nobody else in the record but she ever said  knew that she didn't mean money to her to others right now despite not this my specific request to those nephews and that was the entire point of her saying i want the the other assets to go to my nephews the hurleys she didn't refer to the most her grand nephew have certainly i wish that this doctor and it would have been much clearer but in under all the circumstances nobody has brought forth any evidence saying there's an ambiguity but she might have  documents stood by itself and there was a giant approved stamp with marie signature on it i think there might be a question about that but there is a psychic and if truth is a fault and not at the end  think that that has nothing to do with anything frankly because we have to look at what the trust says are the amendment requires us and we may not like the way this document works it may not be a document that i would have prepared or the  lawyer would have prepared but what the law tells us is with a pretty stable for example if the amendment complies with the trust requirements for amendment it is an amendment  the the trial judge was so concerned about that i think the second issue you're dealing with which is if we assume for argument's sake that it is a trust amendment is it precise enough to tell us what the the several wanted to do with her assets around this particular case again it's not a beautiful legal document but that i would be prepared to put my name on it and be happy enough but the fact of the matter is it's more but it's more specific than most trust me so far it says whether it's specific enough the other side has raised that so if they're saying that this is an ambiguity in the trust document and they want to them look outside trust documents to determine what nephew's really means where is there evidence that it means anything other than hurley does not apply but i think it's worth emphasizing a couple of those points because of the discussion we've had up until now they've relied tremendously on the back of the document was not actual conveniently says don't was curious on the top of it but if it had been shown secretarial services we wouldn't know that and yet it wouldn't be a document that was prepared by the bank it would be a document was prepared by someone other than the what's important here is may thirteenth document was presented for herlihy by a representative of the bank he stamped approved on that document asked her to sign it and she did there's no indication that she interrogated about where this document came from how it was typed how it was prepared of it but the fact that it was presented to her and in effect indorsed by the bank takes it outside of the section to be prohibition i'd like to move to the issue with respect to the bank if i may which is there finally the alternative issue is that if this is an illegitimate document it was a document that is evidence clearly that the bank was supposed to prepare specifically what effect who that proposition and with that they had a duty to prepare the bank officer says i'll take care of it that's all you really need right yes i know now that's that's not exactly  remain her attorney or became her attorney or was her attorney for particular purposes our conclusions of law they are not allegations of fact so in any event they couldn't be judicial admissions judicial admissions apply as you well know only fact that are completely within the knowledge of the pleader but beyond that all this business about whether mr boylan was originally retain for one purpose or another purpose or a range of purposes doesn't make any difference because but what has been clear who up any complaint you want to look at is by the time may two thousand to roll around with this amendment per mr britling was not in the picture really we don't know why but what we do know is he wasn't there because there is no allegation of these complaints that he was there or that he had an obligation at that time and aside from the complaints this is i think it's very interesting city's attorney in may two thousand and two while one of the bank at that time did not inform mr boylan that he had finally received the trust assets from the prior trustee and mr borland to go forward with the amendment to the trust it didn't do that and the reason it didn't do that is reflected in the allegations of the first amended complaint and more clearly in the allegations of the second amended complaint which is by that time the bank was in full control in the bank specifically told mr sterling that it would assure that the amendments the undeniably expressed of the bank were her intention would be made to the trust the bank undertook that duty established those allegations contained in the paragraphs that like there might be very honestly your honor it's not if i say i didn't try the case before i don't tend to try to keep well i'm stuck your point there is obviously any time well i would say that the the land here case stands for the proposition that there is here there's no dispute that the felt the proposal was not prepared by a lawyer to the stash to babies ground on some fundamental public policy that is there's a good reason not to have one i'm boyer's repair these trust that it's important for settlers but it's also this case important for beneficiaries such as these charitable beneficiaries who for twelve years have always been beneficiaries in our supposedly this this investment advice prepared by now where it's going to disinherit them from hundreds of thousands of dollars based upon it and something crafted by a horror that's the very kind of thing that to b p was designed to well right it certainly would require of which is out of the law for the devil and in this case it's important to remember how this is before the court this is not on a motion to dismiss this is summary judgment right and a summary judgment and that that early he's had an affirmative obligation come forward and present some issue of fact it would say we've got some other evidence going to show you that this is how the allocation was going to really have that never right that could have this is summary judgment so it and then integrating it into the existing we would come back to that but they're really talking about this is rewriting rewriting a trust that has been in existence for twelve years based on so so the circuit court relied upon land here and in its decision can be affirmed just for that reason alone but there's a second reason to affirm and that is that this is simply and if you assume it just means grandnephews only that means they get everything that charities get nothing which is completely contrary to this is the thirst he's in had for some twelve years of the charities always receive something there no evidence that would indicate that that was standing it can't be over it and finally this is what the circuit court pointed out how do you divide these assets up the first verified complaint here said based upon the nightstand the baby and i know all this talk goes to timothy that would have to be interpreted is also an amendment to the trust that was that that was the instrument it's it's the neck or a case held past practices so important to look at to reinforce the meaning of the trust is from it here all eight amendments were oh the attorney general stepping up ok i think i have this much richard jose here's is there anything going to this much time as you think you need thank you i'll try to be brief the court is focused on what i consider to be the relevant issues and so i just want to specificity to meet the legal requirements for what put vattel to constitute a trust or trust amendment and there is no evidence that mr skeet intended it to be a trust instrument trust amendment when she signed it and that is also a critical element of the law they're both set forth in the act minor versus gross case by the only supreme court which i think sort of frames the analysis on these two and where there really wasn't any testimony at all it would really didn't get around to doing that amended before she died but the court is really you know now being asked to take general intentions to do something in the future we're not exactly sure what and convert those into a change in this out there's nothing about its purpose it the document itself or the surrounding circumstances that suggest it was intended to do anything more than set forth the investment recommendations of the trust investment advisor and  reserve power to reform the trust in its entirety the trustee saw for approval of this necessarily you don't want to do something encourage the sellers intentions and then have to sell revoke the entire trust and say goodbye trust yeah i'm going elsewhere so that's what all the evidence shows into trying to shoehorn into this the proposition that she really intended to be a trust in him and it has sufficient specificity i just don't think twice let me add one more point even though this was a decision on a motion for s it really doesn't make much difference with respect to the court's interpretation and of the of the feldman proposal itself because the supreme court has said even after a bench trial a chancellor's interpretation of a documentary  normal so we don't really need to look to whether there might be an arguable question of fact you know put reasonable interpretations differ as to the meaning of this document although i don't think those are there this court could say it's documentary evidence we decide what it means without deference to any findings of fact even if there were trial if we're looking just at the documentary evidence itself so i want to focus on briefly then what's missing to satisfy the specificity standard maybe you could look to poll evidence to try and interpret nephews to mean grandnephews a set of actual nephews but the circuit court focused on something else which is who gets how much do we divide equally according to the bedside know some would get the stock some to get a fixed amount of cash that we look to they have to figure out how much it's going to go to you know how it's going to be divided this is an unresolved issue that can't be supplied by the court making a trust  place why i think that that means there is a problem but ultimately you know if it were reversed i'm not sure what the evidence three possibilities would be to the extent that there's no dispute about the authenticity that it's not coming out of somebody's mouth but i haven't really p specifically to do two things to change the trustee from what was then bank one tooth first national bank of the grange and accordion players to increase the share of the trust they would get when the casino those were the things they played in their that time those are the two things they pled in their complaint that he was hired to do by their own admission he could be established the first one of course he did he decided to do it in two stages he changed the trustees and later to another amendment to increase the share joyce promised her that fate the bank would get the trust amended to reflect her desire to adjust the assets as to where they would bank agreed to make appointments for the deceit which is what they pledge that she was without her lawyer now they changed the story from the verify facts of the first one where she had a lawyer you now know her the second complaint as a lawyer to do that and in this in the second amendment you know in the second amendment they pled that the bank had a duty to make appointments based on statements that they would assist her in what you need to make appointments with attorneys if you didn't have one and of course in the make appointments to find an attorney for the scene that wasn't the proximate cause of plaintiff's damages here there is no guarantee that the bank could have controlled the outcome of what the decision to end her new lawyer assuming she hired one would  do i think there's also an element of reasonable reliance in that to whether one person could sit there month after month and say well where's this lawyer you promised to send me but she said judge family and the circuit court said they're harmless not certainly caused by any failure to make a point that if the harm was a lack of an amendment to the trust that the bank couldn't control the outcome or control what she and any lawyer did frankly think that she had a lawyer in the first amended complaint you have to get by that in fact counsel when he first stepped up his his comment was she can form for warrior for intent that we the second amended complaint was dismissed for two reasons  throughout the second amended based basically says we're going to strike the inconsistent allegations with what you verified in the first one now well with your first story the bank can draft press criminals and i'm referring to the of all the verified complaint so she had a lawyer in his own affidavit prepared by plaintiff's counsel he says unfortunately i never got around to drafting that second amendment the second amended complaint they abandon those facts  we also filed motion after that more than thirty days after the three zero for a ruling requesting a ruling on two things was the bank and titled any reasonable use and if so whether they came from the trust as a whole or from plaited shares this was just a it was supporting your position maybe that notion sort of became the subject of some cross motions of other people saying i'm a child of fees as well and they should come from your share and so when these are all very preliminary beauchamp's the point being after the three or four a ruling  thirty days expired the court didn't think it had jurisdiction to hear our motion we don't see that motion as a post judgment motion under twelve zero three or sanctions motion under one thirty seven that would both have a thirty day window the case a sanctions motion both of which would have a thirty day window we think it's a separate claim within the meaning of freo for a prince and our faces also i'd just like to add there was an objection by plaintiffs to to this we're not even sure place has standing because there's been no ruling that even if the bank were awarded fees it would come out of their share as things stand all they got was a peculiar gift and the law would take the fees out of the trust as a whole or the rest right so whatever their objections are i'm not sure from in fact similar motion was filed by the charities and also by plaintiffs we attached to our papers nobody even asked for specific dollar amount these would have been final appeal borders if they were granted so we don't think that you know it and i think it's a little disingenuous when they filed the same thing and nobody had any evidence the court did a long night all the motions frankly and didn't say a word about evidence i think that tells you that we just had not gotten to that point where we would have obviously she's upset jurisdiction to consider and undertaking or anything that i can answer be ok how so you get the last word and here first as to the charities as much as they try to denigrate the me there to document they never deny that it lies in the plane many provisions of the trust itself they want to put all these other provisions on there but what controls it is what the trust says about amendments how they say that it's not clear enough but that completely ignores the whittaker first stables case that they don't even cite in their brief where we have a trust amendment for a document that doesn't even exist anymore testimony about charities did suggest to the court that mr steve wouldn't have looked to an investment firm that she never talked to accomplish an amendment to her trust and they're absolutely completely totally right she did she look to live grange to do and with range did by presenting her this document admittedly prepared by the feldman group but she didn't deal with the feldman group she dealt with the gray and she didn't know who prepared the doc it was given to her i would range look range discussed it with or asked her to sign it and that's the document that says the assets go to the now he's the attorney general  the may two thousand and two period when this feldman security stack it was signed but i want to correct that there is absolutely no evidence of record that in may of two thousand and two mr ski was talking to mr boylan about amending the trust everything to accomplish her wishes with respect to the trust and so on move on then to the the issue with the bank finally here at oral argument the bank edits what we've been saying all along mistress you hired a lawyer or that particular purpose at that time but that doesn't make whiling mr city's lawyer for whatever that time was back in february of two thousand two by the time may two thousand and two rolled around the date of this amendment or was no longer in the picture the fact that she hired a lawyer in in february doesn't mean that she necessarily still had that lawyer in promised to do what was necessary to carry out her wishes and the bank's attorney here we go again says the undertaking was to make appointments to interview with turnings and i learned that there was no promise alleged well let timothy to avoid the residuary would be accomplished as she intended and that no friend there steps would be necessary on her part this is not an undertaking to make appointments this is an undertaking to get her