thank you good morning good morning mr cameron would you like to start yes i would thank you your honor may have please the court counsel my name is sim morrison is the father of both going to independent in this matter and he set up a trust in which he placed one parcel of farmland into this trust for the benefit of his kids  morrison can and as a successor co trustee of this trust the answer to that question is no when we look at the law in connection with the admissions the exhibits  what is it that she did not do that your client did at my clients by my by cindy's or the plaintiff's own testimony the trust was exclusively it minister by the defendant from the beginning of this when it got when the trust one morning die up through to the beginning of this litigation it was exclusively  performed by the defendant that's the point of own testimony so your client denies that he asked input from her and that she participated in many of the decision making correct  the only there's a couple incidents instances that the point of points out and one has to deal with a waterway and the testimony of my defendant in that case is they simply call her to revise or that they were doing that she  didn't and i think the point of the testimony on this is that she didn't give a crew or authority what happened was the defendant simply contacted her let her know what was going on as a beneficiary of the trust asset the land when she signed the in may of two thousand and nine to gary morrison as the successor trustee of that trust in that in turn is resignation of failure to act in her divesting herself of any interest as a co trustee in this manner and so when we look at what the court essentially found the course eventually isn't properly erza able to properly act it then within that section goes on to state in the event of all three of my children failed to act or unable to properly act i hereby appoints and then it goes on to the to appoint more people the document itself is clear that one more person wanted a trustee to act in cindy did which sets forth that if the instrument does not provide a method this would be a theory if the instrument does not provide that in this particular trust is not providing method of acceptance the court the or the law then sets forth geary talking about the may two thousand and ninety reign the beginning right in the beginning when there was a discrepancy with some of the land having previously been split up so why isn't that an act of the trustee as a coach trustee by connection with it then no it wouldn't be a failure to act but if she sits by i don't really makes no statements or does nothing proactive regarding it and yes it is a failure to act or clipping the lab chick around since she property and action of her declining her role as a trustee in this matter because the deed is clear that it's very morrison as the successor trustee not her and that's what she wants to get changed she's essentially trying to on do something that she did ten years ago in her actions of signing that deed is a clear act of her divesting herself of her interest as a statements are that it was done exclusively by the defendant and then she did not exercise and trust ours and then last one otherwise indicating acceptance of the trusteeship there is no evidence of any other acceptance by her in fact the testimony says she doesn't do that so she's not acting was a go ahead was it not the intent of the father as expressed in the trust that the only way that one of the children would lose their interest would be if they died as a beneficiary i would agree with that your honor in that when we talk about the the a go trustee not about what she gets as a beneficiary but the bottom line of what you're doing is that mr morris your client gets the property and she doesn't consent like that is not correct your honor this case has nothing to do with the beneficiaries in what they get under this regardless if they are co trustee east or if it's just my client as a trustee this land go to the survivor this case is only about who is gets to act as a trustee it has nothing to do with the residuals both parties agree that the last of them to survive gets gary both plaintiff and defendant and that does not change whether gary is the sole trustee or their co trustees again this is nothing to do with the beneficiaries of this nothing changes with the beneficiaries this is the only who has the right to act as a trustee right so all of those things won't change whether it's gary or cindy in here then what is this about it's about who gets to be who gets to act as the trustee whether it's just gary as the sole trustee or whether it is cindy in gary as co trustee is there a proposed sale of the land that the kids don't agree on no they're not trying to sell miller but want to sell it they want to hold onto it and whoever secondly you know that account is not opened up as an account of the warren g morrison trust it's opened in own by the two of them as i think joint tenants and it's a personal account not a trust account in last li ao how was that account treated i was intrigued and where the funds put into that account from the trust trust files  were poured into that account in then divvied out by gear where there any other personal income individually placed in that account i have not fairly reviewed all of the bank accounts i don't know whether or not anything went into or out of it is my understanding that it was simply used for a depository to hold money so then gary would then distribute it up why shouldn't we look at this a s sister thought brother was doing a pretty good job of operating as co trustee and just didn't interfere because that's not what the law allows to have happen and that's why i point defending exclusively at it and now she wants to come in and start changing everything around a co trustee must participate in reform and she did  over this entire time did he accept yes how did he do that because he's the one that he's entered into caste reg remans he's the one who has accepted the money from the tenant he's the one that has distributed out all of the money he has written all of the checks for the trust he's the one who is not it's was we everything for the trust ok i thought you were claiming that there was something specific that she had to do to accept didn't do that wouldn't you have a legal battle over whether that happy should be in the trust or not in the trust in by surrendering that voluntarily isn't that an act as a coach trustee for the benefit in the good of the tru i think it's an act it has to be construed as an act of her divesting her interest in the trust because if you wanted to maintain and continue to be a co trustee she would have had it as  us is relatively simple d and the circuit court in grand summary judgment for the plaintiff felt the same way about counsel talks about is this act and failure to act respectfully we believe that defendants position is really a legal conclusion in search of arguments and has litigation began what we're talking about with the opening of that account and  this right you kind of reference well what was this account used to us when was this account opened my client the plaintiff was in montana came back after the funeral went with defendant to attorney with moore and after finding out that evolve had been appointed as successor co trustees what's the st thing that they did to gether they went to the bank and they opened a joint account and in this account is the only account that ever handled the trust monies from the time it opened d all the way until two thousand and seventeen when defendant unilaterally closed the account without notice  then exclude her from all her activities and they're after refused to allow her to have any import or sale or what happened to this property we do believe that this goes back to the the settlers intent their father  creating this trust and i want to because of the mention here but i want to point out something that was in his reply brief suggesting that was two different versions of the two thousand water bridgeable trust if you look at the th amendment which is the controlling document here at that time the father knew of course that his son roger had previous east both kerry and plaintiff and in that says the only way that this is trust ends is for one of the two siblings because at this point these are the only their father intended for both of them to be co trustee now council wants to suggest going to the bank and setting up this account doesn't count but for us that trust account it's the time worn phrase of a rose by any of  name smells just as sweet it is they should have set up as a trust account defended themselves that he doesn't know why they didn't but it was a trust account in the sense that only trust money went and trust money went out and bill are signatories of this account wrote the checks plaintiff said it was just easier to live in the same state and there's not that many checks to write and this was part of the circuit court's point you know we're not talking about a huge trust here we're talking about one plant on land that's on cash land th not necessarily that much that needs to be done and it kind of confuses things there are two people writing checks and getting that in common so is council it's just us right it mentions she went along with this process and  even the defendant's testimony he said it's in the agreed to that process and that we think is a delegation best pacific duty of a check writing to defendant it that this is in the actions you see in this case is the informal agreement of a brother and sister operating on a small parcel of land and they treated as such but at the end of the day what happens here in two thousand and seventeen defendant decides to elevate himsel again closing this joint account in this case and there is no evidence that there was ever any disagreement between these two of what should be done again defendant says that this pilot project he just called an informer hey this is going to be done she has no input let's keep in mind as the record reflects she ended up agreeing to pay out of her pocket for half the time and project defendant in his argument doesn't get to say well we just called her up and said you gotta do this and just of a sudden magically half the money  that she had to assent to that she had to write a check she had to agree that it was proper to pay for half the time and project as you would expect it co trustee to do so she was participate in the important decisions that had to lease that's alternately what led to this this litigation she is simply trying to return herself to the position that her father intended her to be and by being a trustee and it is defendant who is violating the final wishes of their father that she be able to participate now the discussion previously is correct that they're not looking to sell right the land right now council is correct they are splitting the income and it in a way it seems silly that you have to argue over control but it does matter for the purposes the deeds that matters and knowing who the trustees are and who has the right to act for quiet title the things that were part of the original complaint in this case but there could be decisions that would be made by a single trustee without the permission of plaintive that could have an effect on her now you know counsels response that would be well that her proper action is to bring a fiduciary breach claim against that of and and as a beneficiary but why should she have to her dad dangerous co trustee the day she finds out about it she doesn't open a bank account she's always reviewing the bank statements she pays for half the time and project she talks to the cash renter a few times again there's not that much to do but this only became a problem when defendant elevated himself a plaintiff and said i don't want to be trustee i don't think you accepted this then has come up with this trustee or something but again let's look at the purpose of the trust and the language of the trust the trust only gave a single way that you can divest yourself of being co trustee and that is by giving written furry days notice to the beneficiaries that was not done here defended admits that and that is the singular way that once you have acted as trustee you can resign his trustee what they're trying to do is shoot horn this this day written notice that she didn't and that she intended to resign and again this legal actually came about in two thousand and seventeen once he called everything and put the money in his own personal account plaintiff is not trying to control a show here she's not trying to be a bad person she really really wants to be on the same level in terms of administration of the small piece of land that her brother is a out and which is what they're for their father intended now with these deeds and again it's close to going to wind issues with these deeds because she acted as a trustee by opening the account because just as in a day you get asked you know what did he do that she didn't and there's nothing in this trust document that says she had to go running down the street and shout from the mountain tops hey i'm trustee job and you cannot there is nothing else that's required that's her act and so you know what she does that this april was original deal in april only two months after her father had passed when gary unilaterally attempts to transfer the property that is an invalid deed on the face of it he cannot unilaterally transfer the property because she has it's a joint tenant individual transfer back into the trucks but the point that we argue and what the circuit court had had held is that these are both invalid transfers because if the defendant did not have the legal right to unilaterally transfer of the property to themselves personally because he didn't have that authority as a single trustee that makes that deed in battle so the subsequent deed attempting to undo that wrong is also an invalid they both do not run with the land and that is part of the issue of why we have this deep confusion and problem on this case and why this case was brought to trial counsel as an attempt to fix the because it is part and parcel of the fact that she should be court press t v she is court trustee but these deeds created a confusing mass as to what was going on here but they're both invalid as i mentioned in my brief technically in her testimony my client denies that she was in person to sign this maybe too but because she had documents and journals in her testimony showing that she was actually in montana at the time there's some sister in this situation are here now at the appellate court arguing not who gets the property not over the income from from the property but who gets to manage it and it getting it's the clear intent of the father that they both do it so all of these arguments to try to come up with that's why i said as a conclusion in search of an argument it's all it doesn't help that she went to the bank oh he was the only one that did the chocks all there is didn't transfer that should count as a giving up her rights as co trustee or transferring the property even know the trustee only gave one way to back out of her role as trustee it seems defendant simply doesn't want to have to answer to his sister relative to being quote trustee still has the obligation by grown adults and siblings and this is what their father wanted get along and managed as small property here in illinois figured out and move on and that's what should of all worlds in his opinion he was right in all the checks he's doing these things he wasn't getting his way what was the problem why did he have to crew no matter and close the account put it in his own personal account then refused to talk to her and say you're not co trust anymore or you never accepted it that is the problem in this case that is what this case seeks to correct and simply get as fact to the purpose of their father in creating the th amendment in the trust and having them both circuits co trustee for this trust and this property and in conclusion we therefore think that these are horse decision was correct there are no material facts in dispute in this case and that based on the law public policy and we apply the facts to the law that's not what should happen it's kids because what the wall is a code trustees must act together when we look at seven o three it's clear and co trustee must participate in the performance of the function the only way they can get around that is a delegation and it has to be properly delegated that's what's in the stanch if there is no delegation here the point of testify there was no agreement between agreed that he would write the checks there was no need to delegate they agreed this was a process they knew they wanted to implement in my response to that justice is that the court the  requires there to be delegation there is no delegation he is out there doing that there is no question he's acting as the sole trustee during this entire time i understand your argument ok what you know what led to this litigation is defendant was actually in an accident and was unable to get to the bank so drew has us as a account he was able to transfer the funds electronically through his computer and then moved it over to the trust account that's what started it because he was in an accident and was there on able to get to the bank that's what what what what started all this but when we talk about what the law requires requires her to act requires her to accept and then there's no been a lot of talk about the intent but what was the intent the intent of the trust is right there  if someone failed to act they weren't a trustee warren's intent was to have somebody do this yes it was his preference to have his kids do it but if his kids weren't willing to do it you was going to have somebody else intent is to have somebody act she didn't do it we can't just have people sit idly by and say ok we'll gary seems to be doing doing all this fine and that's ok the intent was to have somebody act she didn't a was also only to give her an opportunity to act and that opportunity only arise if roger or gary were unable to act and rather was unable to actually he had an opportunity she didn't seize that opportunity you let that opportunity slip by and then when we talk about the thirty day resignation well there is no document that says on the top of it i'm resigning here's my thirty day resignation in bold prince she signs a deed divesting herself that in of itself is a is a resignation if not divestment in the clear indication she is not acting as the co trust way and i do agree with justice right when she asked counsel the question regarding if they had put on their co trustee of this would we be here today my answer that question is no because then we would have a very difficult time proving she was trying to divest yourself of it but she didn't she is trying to undo an affirmative action she did ten years ago in the law doesn't allow it the law wants  participate and there's nothing in the record to show any type of delegation of her duties to gary and that's and we can't just allow people to sit back delegations in a birman of action