his trust set forth a very clear civic mathematical formula as to how these funds should be divided by in looking at this argument in advance i worried i'd have to go through that formula as i  brief but the defendant doesn't contest that if the formula is as the defense says literally apply it comes to a very different conclusion than what actually happened of course it's our position that we're not afraid of the word literally because frankly if he knew just what the words say a literal application as the defense said with the amount of money that were in the trust would have resulted in nobody going directly rose  she received insurance proceeds to research joint tenancy property and what was what was that all or let us know hundreds of thousands of dollars i believe i know other know what i mean larry he said it was in the record what is in the record what is the amount that position with the either of the parents before they died no you're right i've never heard of any anything are even close to that all right seventeen thousand with like insurance proceeds yes and what would be the amount of the trust that would be delegated hard numbers to the other to adrian and her daughter can work with they have received if they had had we follow a formula they would have been perceived slightly over a billion dollars stay late in life but that trust then there would have been more money from earning we don't really know why he did what he did why he didn't do things the way we can tell all we can do is apply this mathematical formula now the the reason the condo or life insurance comes up is because plaintiffs are essentially trying to get this court to believe that mirna was arguing that she was being disinherited and they're saying no she wasn't just inherited she received the assets but again this well first of all it's evident in the fact that in the original trust the amendment and the statement of the trust dated september one thousand nine hundred two paragraph section four zero one specifically creates a portion from erna a our property well your honor if you go to the inn then that section for a one division of trust you have some paragraph a which talks about a portion and i'm not using the word share because it's confusing because of the share distributable share which is the family directing the trustee to distribute the family trust property now the trial court found in connection with two motions for summary judgment and it was affirmed subsequently that the family trust property is that is available after the payment of death taxes and expenses the problem that's created is that if you and a section for a while the definition of share distributable share contradicts the concept of distributing the family trust property because the word trustee shall divide the family trust into as many stepper shares of equal value as are necessary to create the file one share for anna and then one share for adrian and shot a bird to be divided always starting with an outrageously inflated number and the reason it's outrageously we did is because the share the definition of the share distributable share does not account for where just for the fact that state federal in illinois word family trust property you can only distribute that which you have but we have to interpret the words in their plain in ordinary meaning and so how do we get around that mean how do we call that a cylinder second motion for summary judgment myrna tried to do that for the court and we were unable to convince the court to be exact numbers in part because the numbers in the original complaint were not accurate and in part because we didn't have theory i believe the judge when saw through that and decided that he was going to stand on his role playing to stand trial for a judgment in the same argument they made in connection with their second motion the same argument you're making you can't to buy property when it doesn't exist when the taxes have been paid and when and i'm sorry it's a direction she distribute the family trust property the family trust properties those assets that remain after the payment side really has nothing for us we don't really want to get anything that she decided we're looking at this a new but the reason i raise that here on earth is there's no issue raised as to the trial court's finding as  distribution is evident her done the problem is she passed away leon is now now has the power of attorney over her assets that are in her trust leon is worried about dan doesn't want dan to receive the benefit of the assets but if he permits greatest assets to go pursuant to the terms of her trust what happens is he can't control he can't keep dan from getting any money so he exercises these powers of appointing him and then tries to compensate for it in the form complains in paragraph twelve alleges that mirna cause the proceeds from leon's trust to be distributed this follows one million four hundred eighty two thousand one hundred eighty eight dollars to myrna three hundred thirty distributed from only armstrong each of them each of the girls received seven hundred eighty six thousand eight hundred eighty six dollars which if you multiply comes out to one million five hundred seventy three thousand seven hundred seventy two dollars very very close to a fifty fifty split so your honor is i believe that to the extent that those numbers i don't know that they do or do not include assets that have side of the trust again that is not relevant march eleventh more choosey march twenty fourth of this year and he talks about the standard of reviewing and we're glad for the review of the chinese cities and i wanted to point out that there's multiple cases regarding your honor cross there are your honor and i think all of those cases are are very factually individual i don't think that there is overall their president to it in any one case although i would refer this to the oldest ogleby case which is cited in our brief and which specifically directs the court in construing the intention something the grand tour with in a trust to look at the documents in their entirety yes and specifically the overall plan of distribution and i think that's important because that is what the having intended to do so he could have done it very easily he did not need to go through the process of creating a convoluted formula that leaves in order with a value of zero and more importantly that if you look at the word looks at the documents in their entirety they'll see that thank you your honor i have running through a number of points that i think have to be addressed the proper the past outside state in one sense i agree that it's not we should just be looking at trust reason that came agree though that you know ordered to leave the intent that we're hearing that we have to look at all the documents i would never say you should look at all the documents but by all the judge i've not seen a case that dealt with that kind of an issue but once you're there are no cases out there that have any similarity to a situation where the trust documents have been amended over time it doesn't say look at concept of that original section carries over why it's been amended it's been changed it doesn't carry over and the fourth amendment refers to one share two through there is no there's no