clients against the defendants in this matter and in particular pursue that judgment against one of the defendants ms manju lange during supplementary proceedings and pursu citation to discover assets bank discovers that ms lange has an interest in a particular trust i trust is called the land the his the center of that trust she's a trustee of the trust and she's also an eighty five percent beneficiary of his lang's father mr simpson intervener in this case has a discretionary income interest in this became hers at that point in time miss lang then holds on to those parcels of property until proximately may sixth two thousand and eight when she then quit claims those parcels into a deed for trust and that a beneficiary was in being ascertained miss lange was in being issues named to that point in time and this unfortunate is maybe mr simpson will eventually pass away her interest in that trust best immediately and mr simpson argues that she's merely miscellaneous merely a beneficiary upon his debt will that language in the trust only refers to the time when she obtains quote unquote physical possession or enjoyment of the property notwithstanding that however she actually has physical possession and enjoyment of some of this property is held in trust she lives in a home situated on one of the parcels of property that because of the way the trust the set up the bank seeks the new liquidate a sufficient amount of his lands interest to satisfy the outstanding judgment or in the alternative to a certain judicial lien against her  we believe that that's a narrow issue for the courts consideration whether this trust was self settled or not and if it was all settled can the bank execute against it or attach a judicial leniency the statute  issue is section two fourteen zero three of the code of civil procedure that's a statutory exclusion from post judgment execution on property held in trust for judgment better when that trust is created by someone other then the judgment better or the finds that are part of that trust came from someone other than the judgment debt does not have that statutory protection for two reasons one she's a settler of the trust he created to that property that it was settled into the trust came for her it was hers by operation of law at the time she settled the that statute we really was was clearly interpreted in two thousand and twelve supreme court case of russia university medical center versus sessions that cited in our briefs here the key principle set forth by that he says to prevent judgment debtors from trust for judgment better who created or funded the trust so the clear corollary is that illinois law allows execution by a creditor against asses that are held in the self settled tru alive bill so becomes the trust was settled by ms lang and with her property we believe that the bank should be able to execute against her interest in trucks when with an offer well we believe that lean would be operative at this point but we wouldn't be able to do with being essentially still mr simpson passes and then the property is transferred into her name in which against or interest and we believe it was in error for the trial court to determine that this was not a self settled trust and so then determine that the bank was not allowed to either liquidate a sufficient amount or a certain judicial mean therefore we request it was hers by operational what that in essence the purpose of this trust it's a a medicare medicaid planning trust though the purpose of that is so mr simpson appears as if he doesn't have certain amount of simpson that we don't dispute the facts here mr simpson has given property through his daughter which was created into a trust for his life and benefit he's currently living in one of the homes that used to be in his his own  as they do that is the money has to get at right now and our position is no it's not her interest is a contingent remainder interest it comes at the very end so what happens what has to happen in order for mr lamb to get ahold of this money in a way that the bank take it is that she has to survive my client honestly if she doesn't answer your question just for justice order of her interest w and so from the twenty fourth of march two thousand and eight and so may seventh two thousand and eight this property wasn't that's correct it was it's her property and she sat on it for ten weeks and she didn't go out and create this non medical trust for him for those ten weeks and we don't have any dispute that those are those are the facts in the record our position is that this was not her property individually and that in the big scheme of things this was an  for her father and the funds proceeded from someone else they didn't receive from her they proceeded from her father in the course of this estate plan and the bank relies on the sessions case indicating that the clear corollary to the st that he was trying to his own assets we don't have that here she's not trying to hide her own assets from any creditor in fact the bank didn't exist as a creditor as to her at the time this was formed so there would and whispered guards to the lien the client in the night it essentially climbing through our position as a client base doesn't really do much for this instance because inclined the money had argued less the trust and of course when the money leaves t its judgment against whatever interest we determine she has we our position is contingent remainder so she doesn't really have that until he passes away but anything the court does to interfere with that necessarily harms my client's li because if we have to liquidate the trust again we could have to sell real estate the income can be depreciated also if the leanest plays well liens are typically recorded against real estate she can't  house to her to help with his expenses in that case without paying the judgment of closing it and anything we do interferes with with his legacy and that's that's not the purpose of this trust and the law wouldn't offer any protection for that essentially we would be taking somebody else's money to satisfy th them that individual and listen to my knowledge the signs are false so are you know again in summary our position is that this statute protects lang's interest essentially it's created in good faith the funds proceeded from don simpson and if we look outside the statute to the case law we have cases that are indicating that you can't execute on a contingent remainder it's just simply not  the time and the bank is free to execute their judgment against her if my client pre seasons hers she survives and she ends up taking that money in her own hands that's are essentially her position protection section two forty no three there's a quote in the sessions cases states there's no sound reason to treat the creditors rights are suddenly defeated the moment the settlers box which is we would be able to go after her interests if she the plan was set up this is mr simpson's counsel admit that property was given to mislike it was hers outright for that period of time which she then put into the trust it's our position that she has a physical possession enjoyment of the home she resides in it's one of the parcels it constitutes corpus of the trust but yet she hides behind the veil of this trust by saying well it's not mine i don't have any that's what so and you know in the instance that some of the assets do need to be sold off for mr simpson's discretionary interest here they would find it hard to believe that this language remove herself from her own home to then liquidate assets to give discretionary income to a father