time twelve minutes and three minutes you'll see the digital timekeeping device on my screen when time has expired i'll hit the gavel and please remember only the clerk is permitted to record these proceedings the morning great judgment of july th two thousand and twenty the issues in that order if the court is probably aware largely pertaining to the request for distribution of assets from this trust there are some other matters associated with this case which we'll get into today during the course argument including jurisdiction choice of law as well as the issue of trust construction and we would ask the court obviously to refer to our brief that if we incorporate our briefs here for the matters that we do not cover orally that will go ahead and get started with those issues today i think that threshold issue here for the court is the issue of personal jurisdiction the court wrote the court decided a motion for personal jurisdiction in this case it found that it had personal jurisdiction over mr schlafly my client in his capacity as trustee of the process and therefore over the trots it found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over mr leslie personally we believe that signing with error judge and that it would make any resulting orders entered by the court void the issue here when we determine the question jurisdiction for a trust is its place of administration and i think the parties agree on the standard  there are five factors that are considered in determining where a trust of the minister include the residence of the beneficiaries the location of the trust assets the residence of the trustee the language of the trust and where the trust conducts the i apologize in this case it's fairly clear that those factors weigh strongly against the exercise of jurisdiction over the trust and only one of the six beneficiaries of this trust has any residence in illinois in that particular individual resides here part time over for maintaining a residence if our position as assets are not located in el annoys me there is really no evidence of any trust assets in illinois the asset here is any evidence to connect them to this area so statements for that account were mailed for a period of time to alton but again the assets themselves there's no evidence of them being located in the way the residence of the trustee the trust in almost all of that time he has resided outside of illinois so we look at the factors of the residence of the trustee yes the other trustee resides part time in illinois so that's a small factor but in the great scheme of things  that's because there are many other factors and so it's one you know maybe one in six or so of the factors he's only one of the two trustees and considering the other factors which jurisdiction the land other two factors the language of the trust the trust does not contain any sort of a one way choice of law provision any sort of jurisdictional provision it's specifically references in article five that assets can be located outside of  obligations can be made with not residents of illinois and lastly where the business of the trust is conducted again based on the residence of the trustees the business of the trust is conducted in multiple states including ellen away but also including california and other states this is also true because the beneficiaries of the six reside outside  president is on the jax i'm not certain his address was listed on the checks judge i think probably the trust oh i'm just not certain i know that the investment account statements went to an alternate address for the co trust alter your welcome so as it relates to jurisdiction over the trust considering those factors as well as any kind of due process analysis we believe that jurisdiction really properly court conducted any sort of choice of analysis that was an issue that was raised by my client and we believe it's significant in this case because of the factors we just identified that there are multiple states that have significant connections to this case including california missouri and potentially illinois without doing that analysis we don't know exactly what standards or law the court should be applying in conduct it's interpretation of the trust we cited in our brief and ellen was a statute which permits the court were to have conducted this analysis and determined for example the california law applies arguably arguably a more differential standard should have been applied to the trust interpretation affording the trustee in this case my client would note that the trustee discretion is an issue that varies by law of various states and the courts not that are in making its ruling we also believe the trial court erred and its interpretation of the trust  compel the distribution to both the petitioner in to respond it lies a foreshock if the court looks at the trust it's a little bit of an unusually drafted trust in that the provision that would apply here because m says essentially is that the that essentially say what it says that the share for the petitioner shall be held by mrs schlafly as trustee and then to other siblings the trustee can apply the income and principal as they determine for the benefit of the petitioner and it's the settlers intention at the trustee have absolute discretion in that regard the provision continues to say that the trust will best absolutely end and when she reaches age twenty six the that language is compared to the shares for the other children which are to be distributed so there's three verbs and well beyond twenty six i'd say she's middle aged i'm not exactly aware which sizing age what do you clearly knew that there were three different terms to use he talks about terminating the trust upon the death of his wife he talks about distributing shares to the other siblings apart from the petition and then he talks about the petitioner share that clearly those terms have meaning and they need to be given meaning by this court so the trust permitted upon the death of mrs schlafly there was to be a distribution t five of the six children and then there is a vesting of a trust for the daughter our position is that fasting includes a besting in interest meaning that there is no obligation particularly given the discretion of the trustee under the trust instrument and potentially california law if it applied under a choice of line alice's to distribute it there's the trust pacifically says that the trustee can accumulate income so because are a couple of additional factors that we'd like the court to consider there's an eye spendthrift clause in the straw says the court may be aware it's our position that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment over our client's objection without permitting him to do discovery on the petitioner's compliance with the spendthrift lies because of the nature of this litigation he believes and he's put in an affidavit in support of a motion or verified summary judgment pleading that the petitioner has pledged her trust interest to her attorneys to help fund some of these other litigation matters that would be clearly contrary to the intent of the saddle or something that the court would need to allow our client to conduct discovery on so that he can ensure that the  force and the trust funds are not used to fund other litigation or support debts that they're not they're not entitled to be hoarded under the trust there's one additional trust provision i apologize i'd like to reference also  regarding the trust construction and that section c of article four article for being the section with the terminations distribution and besting language section say talks about what would happen if one of the siblings would pass away and it discusses that if the siblings had a child that child would take their interest absent that the share would be passed among the surviving siblings notably though it says that that share if it is the portion allocated to petitioner will be held in trust and the portion to the other siblings will be held in fee again this reinforces the idea that fasting and distribution are different and was being treated differently here she has her own whole section action to compel turnover under eleanor law we write recognise that in dealing with the trust the court has some discretion and that it can kind of take bets that it feels are necessary and appropriate but the court in this case entered summary judgment on count two which included a prayer for punitive damages because to compel action to compel turnover isn't to recognize cause of action as a for example reach a fiduciary duty or breach of trust type of action there is no basis for pleading a cause of action seeking punitive damages under that theory and certainly the court would have erred in granting summary judgment on the count in its entirety which is how the order is phrased so it's our position that they actually need to be remanded even if you disagree with our interpretation to clarify that the summary judgement is in time entirety account to but that is limited to the partial summary judgment issue and the relief requested in the motion which is an order compelling turn over as it relates to law is our position on her position is that she was the respondent she has no operative pleading in this case she has no complaint she sought a partial summary judgment again compelling a distribution of her share as well as an accounting we don't disagree that she is entitled as a respondent or as a party who hasn't filed an operative pleading her claim to seek summary judgment on eight issue are matter but she's not entitled to see different relief absent a pleading and so it's our position that the court erred in awarding her relief on the basis of her motion to compel turnover and partials not not even motion to compel to reverse a motion for partial will do is address the issues as presented by my opponent and he would be much more leeway to do this st of all your honor with respect to count two our requests to compel distribution subsection b and that says to remedy a breach of trust that has occurred or may occur the court may number one compel the trustee to perform the trustees duties right there what the trustee is compelled to follow the terms of the trust the trustee is compelled iowa law to follow the terms of the trust in a proper fashion the trustee doesn't have discretion to disregard mandatory terms of trust and in this case that mandatory term being that this trust has terminated when phyllis schlafly died in september of two thousand sixteen this trust terminated the next subsection two of three dash one thousand and one says to enjoin the trustee from committing a breach of trust subsection four to order a trustee to account your honor those are all members of the court those are all things that judge smith took into account and stated in her order the other any matter a rising in the administration of the trust to the extent its jurisdiction is invoked by an interested party in this case the matter arising in the administration is this trustees refusal to properly terminate the trust and this trustees improper interpretation of the trust terms it's d h huge also references jurisdiction so i'll address that right now in kind of get to that because i think we all agree that's as a threshold issue but it's very straightforward we've laid it out in our brief and in particular i'm looking at in particular i focus on where was the business of the trust and our brief lays it out i believe pretty clearly that the business of the john fred schlafly trust was conducted eight of them he filed with the state of illinois and every one of those returns lists an address of three hundred and twenty two state street alton illinois you found eight more with the federal government listing that same address as our brief says he wrote fifteen checks from in account the account the address on that account shows the three hundred and twenty two state street address and all ten we in the record provided these statements from these got trade account the address of scottrade where was it managed edwardsville illinois we then  have john shalev admitted that he received mail all of this mail he received at three hundred and twenty two straight state street finally when he after we filed suit and while we were trying to serve him he then wrote a letter to his brother has let resignation letter and that's in the record the letter lists the state street address and alton illinois on the top of the letter s where he was conducting his business in fact he's the letter says what it says but he says i provided you with the books and records of the trust so you can fully manage the trust it's all the books and records that that's what he's referring to jurisdiction under the law could not be in the poor that it is in illinois second and that's like to go to the terms of the trust the terms of the trust are very clear this is not complicated this trust is not unusual it's just a testimony trust written in very basic form counsel referred to section four c and a reference to in this this clause in trust for hand and in fee to others well it follows section a which discusses the fact that if an corey is not twenty six years of age or share is held  trust that that's plain english there is no other way to interpret this trust then how the trial court interpreted it which is simple this trust terminated when phyllis schlafly died in two thousand and sixteen in particular i want to make a point about a two to underscore what i believe is an absurd argument by the appellant and th is for this court to accept apologies argument this court has to ignore that last sentence it has to the sentence that says said trust shall vest absolutely in my daughter  terminated it only way you can find that this share is held in trust as if you ignore that and that's contrary to the law because you are required to read the whole trust next counsel that what i'd like to do it in back to you look at the jurisdiction i believe we've satisfied that illinois are illinois your section nd we look at the terms of the trust i believe the terms of the trust are clear it just takes place it's plain english straightforward but rd i want to just read the judgment order of the trial court was correct and that makes sense it's alluded and how it's arguments that the trust twenty four but this is called distribution upon terminations and in that statute it tells a trustee under illinois law it's you provide an accounting it you have the why that's all the trial court did was properly interpret the terms of the trust and then set follow the law and i'm going to take this further regarding eight section eight hundred and seventeen in what i believe are absurdities appellate argument and it gets into why i call distractions the st distraction is this whole tax issue of the tax issue it rests upon some things that  say but if taxes are an issue in this administration and more importantly if they ever were and issue in this administration a trustee by law would follow eight  say taxes are an issue the i r s has notified us and accountant has given an opinion we need to hold back x dollars that this happens all the time it's very common  the only thing in this record before this court is what john schlafly thinks and what roger schlafly think but i ask this court i say two things st of all this is a distraction and in no way should prevent germination subject to hold back but let's take it further and i ask the court to hold a palance to the record and the record page seven hundred and thirty seven and then again also in the report and the brief of the appellant's it says that the statute of limitations for i r s examination expires december th two thousand and twenty well according to the record there is no tax issue it expired on december th so that is not an issue as we sit here if it ever even was an issue the next distraction aged twenty two or actually i'm referring to my brief start the next distraction is this related to litigation they raised it in their brief they raise it with its own heading so we have to address it we told this court it has nothing to do with this case because the john fred schlafly trust is not a party to any of that litigation we told you on page twenty two what that litigation was about but we then also let you know that john schlafly file a false affidavit in january of two thousand and twenty in front of judge david gergen they raised the issue we had to respond and then there was sponsors interesting because they then in response to the fact that john lied to the court they then said well that's not relevant well you made it relevant so again another distraction and this related litigation we then get into a way believes the th distraction and that's the spendthrift clause under the terms of the trust this trust terminated when you need to take yourself off mute please by this morning i will briefly address the issue that is unique to us and our opposition to the pellets appeal and that's the issue regarding summary judgment primary difference between petitioner respond allows by the plain language d or a summary determination of major issues by the party that's what respondents or show of the old terms so the i'm you need to take yourself off me please there we go thank you and thank you for the reminder we just heard a lot of references to the all on oil trust code and the provisions that may apply when i trust terminate to when you're directly looking at history i apologize just as last let me try to do that the best thing language at the article for it regarding the petitioner is given meaning only if we treat  a word that is different from distribute and from chairman a if we treat vast as a word that creates that some trust that's in place to allow subsection c has meaning as well subsection c again provides that there be a distribution to the petitioner in trust if one of her siblings were to pray to cease without children giving that provision the vesting language meaning means that vast has to be different than distribute and terminate established in our brief that vast under eleanore law includes to make application to create an unconditional interest by creating the sum trust those requirements are fulfilled and all the terms of the trust have meaning i don't think we have anything further for the court thank you for your time we would ask that you reverse and remand the trial court strikes when the order in q well thank you cal so we will take this matter under advisement and issue a an order and due course thank you all very much and