remaining german class and that they have no standing to purchase the proceedings upon that order the bank was concerned that well if there are any orders to be entered it would be enforceable against the  trust or the trustee that it would not be binding on the contingent beneficiaries if they're not represented somehow in this proceeding oh by the  why now this issue only really becomes an issue if the court finds facts the the remainder men do not have standing before still find that there are a class of contingent remainder but whether or not they have standing is the real issue that the most agree sent issue pending after the finding of no standing is the motion by jury to approve a settlement agreement that we had knocked out prior to filing a motion for summary judgment and that settlement agreement provided various different mind and decided under the under the statute that provides for virtual representation that if we do not have primary beneficiaries in that agreement we cannot make it enforceable agreement that's was my clients would have to allege wrong that's not how does he start this he started his mission for direction with the bank the bank sought to include all primary beneficiaries in that in simply have standing because there is nobody else tect our interests on the banks off to encourage the participation of all interested parties in this case and whether this court finds that we are vested or contingent on the boys are the lineage those who are who are born from one person and soon as you will soon as the trust came into being those people who are descendants at that time had a the rule operates when there is a he has been injured disposition that requires some time in between when that decision comes in and when the gift specifically for language that's that's involved in this trucks and i think that your enemy makes an excellent point although that's not really the the question that's before you it's certainly a consideration needs to be which is  and the case is about a trust that and our opinion wasn't written correct it was written as a special needs trust and i think that's what has created the confusion that has led to this litigation like you asked if it was pretty standard language it is standard language but it's language that would have been used in a situation where someone needed a special needs trust and that is not the case we got into a fight about  d what i want to start by pointing out to the score is what the specific language in her trust sat on its face it says in several instances that this is for the benefit of my son jay shall show this is for the benefit of the the fact that the remainder of the trust whether it's contingent or best it goes to jerry's descendants is almost an afterthought in this trust her intent was not to provide for those boys one tech was to take care of jerry again that this is a truss construction case the other side doesn't want it to be that we think the language isn't as we think it is a truss construction case i begin my argument by telling you heard ted clearly is to benefit jerry maybe the state misspoke earlier but i'm basing the fact that we need to determine her intent on the harris trust that's the goal of any construction that's the whole of the examination of the language as your honor so aptly pointed out that's the issue here the contingent remainder when they get back into the suit the sukkos for the trial we present experts about what jerry's medical care maintenance and education needs are we present legal briefs somewhat should make up maidment prep for purposes o proceedings if you look at the trust creation it's created at the time of phoebe's death because that's what it's funded and the trust contains language combination language in it that says this trust shall terminate upon saying creates a vested remainder even in that language it strikes me that the boy's hafter survives because the descendants of gerry can't be determined when phoebe was alive it can't ha remainder at this point it would be invalid they can't do it because if they got hit by a past five minutes afterwards injury was still alive they wouldn't have anything to give away it can't be tested until jerry dies exhaust all of the assets there is no stipulation that the trustee can exhaust principle there's no stipulation that jerry is only limited to interest income the trustee if they felt that that what life the difference between that case and this case is that that case the trustee could not exhaust the gift the trustee was listed there in this case the trustee wields even more power because it can exhaust out the language was similar because of the language construct of the trustee to divide out and pay and then in that case it's interesting when we look at it closely because it says that the specific  pay out and the harris court said it doesn't need to say that all it needs to do is to generally direct the trustee to split the money and pay it out that's exactly what we have here in this case and hall reinforced that idea hall says that the words employing the gift are found in the direction to divide distribute pay or to sell the property and distribute or pay over the proceeds in the future the gift will not b until the time arrives to pay to buy or distribute the gift will not pass it is clear that under the application of the divided payment there contingent remainder if there's any  have said he trusts the trustee shall not dissipate the principle of the trust under a certain amount because it's my intent for that to past jerry's heirs that would have made it crystal clear that she wanted a portion of the money to be left over for jerry's heirs the time to go into that issue i think also that the abuse of discretion standard is a very high standard in this case the trial court was familiar with all of the facts and circumstances of this case there's no gross injustice there's no there's no it up any decision fly in the face of the current state of the law so clearly to was giving the form to the center that would be a different situation that would not be the application device it will that would be similar to the situation we have now but because there is progression require