material fact but made terminations of the case improper that the questions of law raised by mr johnson's claims should not be answered until those issues material factored side this case should be remanded back to the circuit court for completion of discovery a full on proper consideration of the facts both those currently outstanding and those that may arise and the opportunity for mr johnson if there was no direct attorney client relationship than mr johnson's claims fail because there was no duty however this case is n december twenty sixth team when the case was terminated mr johnson had presented to the circuit court multiple basis for the conclusion that defendants owed him a duty of care you presented evidence that such cases to support such cases and evidence that the friend in his had breached their duty of care further during october twenty sixth teen december twenty sixth team and beyond most important documents in the case mrs danger during her lifetime was the primary beneficiary and mr johnson along with his brother sam johnson and his sister ms city police so some of the evidence that mr johnson put forward included evidence that the defendants served as a chinese for mismanagement of trust  what aiding and abetting or acting in concert with it is then mr johnson's argument that he served as the defendants are his attorney for him and was bullied and at one time gene stage who was the friend and client why and is one of the main issues that needs to be fully discovered and addressed on reaming this is an issue that is important to this case because it does define the various duties the defendants are additionally there's the issue of m the evidence includes contemporaneous doctor notes and evaluations and includes contemporaneous care journals prepared  duties and also sought advice from him with respect to walking with his sister in this wheat for purposes of properly managing the trust and curbing what meetings i don't believe any however it was you know communications that were in the record between mr johnson and including shawn johnson sometimes correct he and shawn johnson and we're communicating with mr sturgeon originally the three siblings were working given that discovered was still ongoing at the time and in the consolidated cases including the i twenty thirteen c h three zero four case i believe discoveries currently i'm going today so while there is that response wasn't hired didn't know him that wasn't necessarily the basis for why mr johnson was talking with mr sturgeon not because he formally hired him not because he  he was the attorney for the beneficiary of the grant or and the original trustee and wh the original trustee way but the arguments that we raise i think are very compelling that simply because the money has to go somewhere of actually you pass away and he happened to pick the subway that doesn't create thank you i mentioned in my opening by the families have been narrowing or trying to narrow this entire case down to one very specific question of turning my relationship between further just in general we have issues with respect to the facts the council is discussing with you facts that actually haven't been decided yet there's evidence however there's much dispute and i have to point out that the actual recent order from the supreme court was i don't question the results of the circuit court making factual determination and coming up with witness credibility the terminations when the court decided that the state that mr sturgeon practices in the area of the state planning has done so for many years and enjoys a good reputation for his upwards had mr surgeon suspected there is evidence that asks begs the question who was defendants client and why there is questions about those matters now i know client mentioned the concept of third party beneficiary status with any chinee however that is not something we have argued or that was even argued on summary judgment the issue is riveting judy not third party beneficiary of the well it's a separate issue  so that was something that was brought to the court's attention but was never specifically address also with respect to just amending in general do you believe it's telling that in the same order the december second order that denied the motion to m motion to reconsider and the motion for the remand the circuit court opened matters of summary judgment and matters of discovery in the case with which this case was consolidated given that the only difference between the two cases is the defendants in this case the crimes in this case were not to finance the other case however the