our brief focused on three issues i'll briefly touch on all those three issues i want to focus on the first one if i may and that was our claim that the six month period under the trust contests applies to this case and as far as we can sell this is a case of first impression and on the line because we have not been able to find a case it really addresses a specific issue raised here applies where you have a irrevo need it to tie with the declaration for us but more importantly if you require a polka ball element for the declaration for us you're excluding a whole category of your vocal trust that properly should be with them as six months limitation and those are era vocal trusts where there is a legacy poring over from the south as well and we had that situation that era vocal trust gets tied insurance trust set up in the suburbs lifetime it really has no play in the administration of that estate it's standalone nothing is flowing into it it has no in it debt has no impact it's standalone same six month time frame that will contest or first contest for revokable for us and in this case you look at the consequences of the don't attack then approach in this case sume the leadership dies or appropriate is promptly open six month claim period runs all claims are paid they say squoze the executor distributes the property year general statute of limitations runs this complaint is filed ultimately it could end up taking that property away from them so you have a lot of potential for governmental alliances but if you to the six month requirement that all gets handled upfront that's also fair because when that person dies their will is immediately filed with the clerk and the probate is open all the heirs have access to  on notice of the existence of this trust they can get copies from the executor get copies from the attorney if those are resisted they can file a citation and get that for us and noah crime do their due diligence and decide within that same six month time frame whether they're going to contest it so i think it clearly even with the legislative intent for profit or early administration when you have a trust out there that gets implicated in the administration of someone's estate it's such should be has been close another point that the plaintiffs have brought kind of a technical and say well this really isn't a trust contest but if you look at their complaint what their complaint their prayer is they want this everything because there's really no jurisdiction to even consider this complaint by you know the or the second issue we touched on was the conventional trust aspect it and we may be wrong in our assessment of this court previously ruled in this case that  beneficial and chris she had full management to control the property she had the full power to direct the trustee which is their self in dealing with the property and loot including conveying it so i think when you look at all those retain rights foreclosed that option by the earlier ruling but we would submit that as as the basis for also upholding the two thousand and five modification and the last point is that constructive for us i won't belabor that by just we've made i think we've made it clear the factual context here you have leadership and i have said i was you know trust in two thousand and one where she had all the lifetime interests and then her son lendl had the succeeding lifetime interest in that property following that activity in two thousand and one things changed and it's in the record we didn't get the actual court files but the fact that between two thousand and one and two thousand then she changed revised her will consistent with that again providing for john and raymond and the last thing she and she modified the trust she thought definitely revised her will she did a new deed with new property evaded into that trust and i think it's benefit from a second farming and the way it stands now that's exactly what's going to happen he'll have a life time and joy in light of that second form so we think in the interest of equity and fairness that at a clearly intended it to go and that would be to the benefit of her two sons john and r one point i would like to make a guess that i think applies to all three portions of mr cochran's argument is he keeps referring to this modification the modification is knology it doesn't exist  that is based upon this court's prior ruling and so he bootstraps attempts to bootstrap his arguments by stating the premise that there was a modification there was no m the the law of the case was that this matter was decided by this court and when they try to assert their statute of limitations a motion to and with the recent statute of limitations argument that really should have been brought up in the first appeal because when we filed our complaint the defendant filed an answer and they did not attempt to dismiss our complaint based on any statute stations so from our point of view that's by the boards and after the first appeal is decided now they want to go back which is the same thing they're doing with the construct a constructive trust argument that counterclaim should have been filed prior to the real me when the when they file their answer to our complaint and really the i believe there are there are two orders that were entered by judge brannon after th he granted i believe our motion for judgment on the pleadings which does not involve any factual determination and then he also granted our motion for s our position is that if this core can affirm either of those rulings then the trial court's judgment after the remain and should be affirmed now with respect to this argument that the trust is amendable again it seems to me that the law of this case was established by the first appeal the trust is not amendable and in effect what mr cochran is asking this court to do today is to overturn a prior ruling in the first appeal that makes no sense the ruling was correct and i don't even procedurally i don't think it's permissible with respect to the constructive trust this issue of these seven disputes that are referenced in the in the balance brief on that they tried to bring that up twice at least twice and helped him in the truck court and judge brinn and both times rejected that said it would not be considered so it's although it's brought up it's not in the record i mean i don't understand how that would be any different than if the in in a case where evidence is offered and the court rejects the evidence of stains an objection it's not part of the record and if you if you want to bring that in this appeal  should be challenging the correctness of judge grants ruling which they're not doing they're just asking this court to consider that information which was rejected by  and then with with respect to the construct of trust issue we believe that the reasoning of judge granted based upon our presentations in the trial court are correct i would point out that  are brief adequately addresses that but none of the cases which are proposed to be precedent for the the defendant's position with respect to the construct just a couple of points first of all there's no question we could have brought up the motion to dismiss up front and maybe we shouldn't and there were reasons whether good or bad that wasn't  consider its own subject matter jurisdiction the second point they constructed trusts only became a necessary element of our case after this chord overturned the trial court and physical files then enter deuces by the record and that's fine but the fact that there were seven cases they've never done a five by case number those are in the record they weren't in the spirit so i think they are valid consideration to put it in the