yours we don't know while it's possible it's not certain bottom line is until he passes away nobody can know whether any of these predictions will pass whether or not you know what steps the trustee might take in the intervening years to manage the cost of the policy and in the end of the day whether the trust better off worse off for having fired this policy there are a couple of killer factors about this trust which i you did not and that was the next thing i wanted to address is that there are two different reasons why the trial court cited as a basis for bridge one in your kind of intermingle one was that the that the assertion that the insurance that his own at that variable insurance is a type permit insurance which is considered also ordinary insurance that his own personal definition of now that really makes no sense as a distinction in this context in light of the relief that was great because the relief that was granted was to take all those assets that were put into the policy and put it in the market and bear the very same risk that which he was taking issue with it or if it's not in the policy it's in the market there so those assets are clearly subject to market risk as anybody in the market knows but they're subject to market risk without the added benefit of a potential ten i think that's an illogical basis to draw the distinction so for those reasons i don't we i think the core conclusion that this life insurance policy was not an asset authorized by the trust instrument finds no basis in the in the wording of the trust instrument itself and ignores really the testimony from of experts on the insurance industry what those terms ordinary insurance  created same time each other trust a similar language and directors each of the trust were funded with real or stock in proportion to the amount needed to mutually fund the first life insurance policy based on this disparate ages of the kids so that was well yes but a variable flexible universal policy is much different the whole life you're on a first of all it has the securities component to it you need you to give the buyer prospectus you have to be a sophisticated bester in order  obtain the maximum amount of insurance policy right and one that's not saying you can buy whatever kind of a church you want to i want you to get the maximum amount your honor that's not what it says you can buy whatever kind of insurance has to be ordinary or term but that's both ends of the spectrum where there was both ends of the spectrum in one nine hundred sixty six when you talk whole life when you talk fairy bill universal life insurance policy it's a little different animal with that is a far riskier investment the trust directives requires that as well it was you have to look at the net income and unrestricted principle to see if you could afford to buy the policy in the case was it in that time way and and in fact even more telling on them but the actions of the trustee beginning as mr probably she said in two thousand and one forward first of all they pretty quickly quit putting it paying the schedule  depleted the cash asset value and they started paying monthly cost of insurance now they never admitted that was because they realized the cost of the the policy was too great but it's clear from mueller our client's father was it was just found out that this large policy was purchased and started asking the trustee questions prior to that they started looking for solutions to fix the lincoln problem and the problem was that its that policy cost exceeded would exceed what was in the trust character maturity they started looking to sell it to mr mueller they started looking to shop in on  get spend all your money on one ten year term policy taking it was essentially excuse the expression crapshoot which i would argue that the lincoln policy is well basically i would question the prudence of pet investment to and that was one of the things they definitely need to look at from the terms of the trustee is how long is this going to last how long is what's the prudence of the investment what is the trust term stack and in the alive the judge is exactly right to make the determination here there's damages and the best investment is not the lincoln policy i didn't get a chance to talk very long about the gross negligence and reckless indifference but i because it has been around a while because they didn't see it for what it was which was frank miller's legacy to grandchildren and they just didn't pay enough attention here made a number of mistakes instead of fixed instead of being f after the company's stock mr frederick miller's attorney it was done on every miller's behalf although maybe i shouldn't be paying so much attention to the language of the trust because that's all up in there your question now is  but the trust the trust carried on after the sale of that stock mean it could have been easy to remove those we have seen trust issues remove those kind of restrictions in the event that the trust of the company hits so that was not the case those calculations don't take into account that they're going to earn additional income on those assets that doesn't take into account the two roughly two million dollars in trust one thousand and seventy or the little bit more than three million dollars that was how there was no guarantee that we were going to get the trust but as it turned out philip in fact did die with those sevens in half the phillips trust goes to trust thirteen ninety seven those assets are also available the law generally if you look at cases on damages a large generally as a trustee is not punished with damages unless there is some kind of self in ritual if there was a self dealing with a trustee essentially stole from the trust or enrich