he also filed a claim for seven thousand eight hundred dollars plus costs for in home care taking services provided to the see if you had a stroke in the wonderlic illinois after returning from germany it  this substantially prejudice is paul and paul's case that the outcome of the case is completely changed or the inference is there some sort of an arrangement between a person who's deceased and a person who works for twenty seven years for no pay the allow the presumption to vote for two of the services to bring in if if i may just take a second to grab the case i could go through a few or the inability to make return either in time or otherwise the recipe of the service is paul ryan and his services for almost thirty years through an arduous pulls three working in the basement till midnight arrangements told us would be in the form of washing the windows haul her into business and answering the phone and ordering materials but is not sharing in any profits there is no evidence of any at this point he probably has for he came in when he was twenty nine so he's in his forty's early fifty's though paul born in america but he's five one to live with his grandmother soward in age twenty nine he came back when his grandmother thrown out on the street if he got a driver's license and where's the testimony is i believe it's possible that since he was thrown out of this household in america each five and came back from his grandmother's residence at age twenty nine is a steelworker based on these factors that are met here you're attempting to show us are attempting to submit to the court did it based upon the financial discrepancy he the more three million friendship of rules which you probably did it never developed into a family relationship because while paying one son in one daughter for services it and not this other person if this is a family relationship losing both the only one that if he's not getting paid for twenty or twenty nine years that he was formed services were to destroy is it unreasonable for the court to judge that conclusion and the as the doctor said  about how his fifteen dollars an hour wage is going towards the properties but at some point the properties get lost if the business shuts down for the season is has had a stroke can no longer who upholstery so someone has to run the poultry shop then twenty four seven bad provide the money for this even to invest in these properties pay the taxes secure tenants it's more the upholstery shop it was a real estate a little bit naive dedicated not overly fish was not too little but he didn't want to see the whole thing collapsed so he stayed in there running this operation thinking that there's going to be a payout at as the opposition does on the state of white i did cite room shaken for the general proposition but i think the right is the one that seems to control even more because of the factors that are laid out from say that this isn't the ordinary household duties that he's doing this is much more complicated than that the scene is charging for the services paul's not enriching he's not being rich by any of his own work works for thirty years don't pay representatives of the stage was intended to show there was no disclosure made it was not intended to show that the answers of the opponent were in fact truthful or that these that this was somehow evidence in the case the case  by counsel that tends to show the something like this might be consider as evidence or there might be a waiver as it were as to the bar really relates to a summary judgment action where the is asked by the court a civil procedure to consider those in arriving tori's or depositions as evidence for purposes of ruling on that motion and in fact that this is an express is there are tax returns for norwood's which is a corporation which the accountant testified all the expenses of the business were run through there you'll notice that there was nothing in those tax returns showing compensation to either john or tammy have both of them te she said situation the only people who can know whether or not he was paid amounts are the deceiving and him so for him to come in and testify in his own self interest that he was not paid which by the way the court i think in my opinion the court expressive denied that of the gun case of the we don't have any evidence that he was never paid but that being said the fact that you know his testimony has to be looked at with i think some real law and i do believe that the counsel of the right really that the way the case is controlling here which in my view makes this a case of manifest winning because we have the trial course determination of the facts and applying those facts to the case that we agree applies and with a manifest weight there has to be the absence of any evidence in support of the truck horse finding for the appellate court to reverse here we have  phone you know expenses journalist prices clothing that sort of thing and then to see the service the claimant's driver we have quite a bit of evidence here which by the way goes way beyond what we saw in the white case to show these folks are fact family members or these treating each other as family members there's even testimony that they call each other dad and son some of the documents that were introduces exhibits show hall meetings hall would be consistent with i would call the purport of the will is this a photocopy attachment to those in iraq to tourists that were on that motion again that is not evidence in this case that was a motion attaching documents that was not something that was introduced as evidence at all and so the court i did to my if you cannot even consider that at least it would not be proper there first and i have to back up one step there was never any introduction of corporate records of any kind to in the trial court and i have not seen or heard that there were any corporate curbs the only thing that we you point is that both to me and john who paid but there's no record of it therefore the assumption is always a and there's no room to think this part of what the trial court considered even though that's not necessarily how the trial court ruled i think that the the reasoning used is a presumption when someone who works for thirty years without asking for payment that they're doing so gratuitously when some of the worst men promise case there was a similar situation someone had worked for another person for a thirty years and they came in and made a claim very similar to what we have here and of course said well if you work for thirty years without asking for paper we're going to presume that you just assume are too asleep because you know when someone passes away and you come in to try to make any compensation only this team the holocaust conference for thirty years without getting paid allegedly but i think that that is something that the court can consider common sense is certainly something the court how he had to obtain the world from the deceit that will didn't come from the safe we never saw the documents from the save the two daughters were adamant about getting to the safe and really get out the kids lunches return so