the with the limited time i have i am going to try to break the case down into what i see as the main parts of my argument in the first part justices is going to deal with the issue of the robinson and l all three counts and she dismissed it based on the section in the morning of the probate act the court concluded that we did not file these claims within that six month period that's required in the probate and we your question justice we could have only against the dietrich's but we could not handle against me german and we could not have under the theories played in counts two and three on the conspiracy and the aiding and abetting so as to the first question yes against that beatrix will contest could have been sought but i have also have a response to that in th this is where i think i see that the arguments we made both all before the supreme court decision in alice in the trial court in our regional brief to this court was that if we were not seeking to set person i think based on math case now that what we did was right that we don't want to set aside the entire will rather than focusing on the two people joseph in john dietrich the other l eighty's we have no issue with and under the alice decision i believe that we can do that in the manner in which we have done it and i think the court's decision dismissing that under section one was incorrect and that it should overturned and we should be allowed or sued these theories and again this was at the pleading stage so whether or not in the end we established these theories is going to be a question i guess for another fact finder but we should have been allowed to because the court in robinson was so restrictive in what it said it was limiting it to the facts of the case which were so unusual because not only have the people off filing outside the six month period but into an agreement to take no further action so in response to your question i was uncertain whether or not a cause of action could exist outside a wand but i thought that we had grounds consistent with my requirements as an officer at the time that nick dermont had prepared the trust documents for victoria fish it had also been representing michael fitch in some estate planning at the time victoria fish died the trustee  e and in the trust me engineer of this estate including the estate taxes the estate tax work mr michael fidget that time was continuing to receive advice legal advice from the that creates a conflict of interest when in this instance the very plan that mcdermott created with the assistance of joe dietrich has caused tax liability unnecessarily in the millions of dollars to created it may implicate one point five we didn't get that far because we never gotten discovery justice but i can tell you that michael fish was in on many of the conferences between mcdermott in victoria so one point would not be implicated in that instance because you have thir complicated estate plan did she know that by setting up the form first of asian trust she was going to cost the estate close to five million dollars in taxes and often income did she know by putting the l p the limited partnership in the world into a trust for the farm into the family trust they had an asset that sits there and doesn't produce a dime or be income and then when the mr fish dies in this asset is still sitting in the family trust it does nothing other then now the family is forced to sell an asset that we play clearly victorian fish one in mind to receive you have an asset sitting a lot of the information comes from what the attorney explained and what the attorney tried to do complex did a reason he won't qualify attorneys say if we do this you will suffer taxes or your family in the amount  existence since the late eighteen hundreds and it's been owned within this family the hundred two acres and it's i mean there's not houses that were going down but it was there and i'm not sure if you are the or there's no houses there all around the farm and self so just that's the only thing that could be done would be you could sell a farm and then a developer would come in and develop it but there was not it was not for the purpose of choir in more properties it was for the do influence the conspiracy count to counsel mention this in titles conspiracy to how do we influence the aiding and abetting cantons aiding and abetting the new influence and you'll see it as extremely important judge with prejudice and and it does so for a very good reason and that is that there is no allegation anywhere in the anywhere in the second amended complaint or in any pleading filed by the plaintiffs in this case that here sue knew or should have which i have the right to do but here's her big disconnect occurs it is everything that mr barrett has our new t v is all factual information that will come out in be decided by wanted to do that maybe she wanted to have a tax consequence that's not the way we played it we played it is that the past consequence was adverse it shouldn't happen in the plan the plan could have been done without the tax consequence it could estate is producing they have to invest these assets they have to properly invest all the duties that are incumbent upon the trustee who if the state has been damaged by virtue of somebodies negligence the trust farm but in doing so it created tax implications that were absolutely unnecessary and it could have the the same thing could have been down by putting that money in the family trust and inserting the marriage trust and having certain you know when they are that close tight fiduciary relationship and they receive the we under the very plan that they developed the amount of one point two million that's the i think that justice would be the only thing you could argue the will contest