stuck who was present when the alleged act transfers took place who was the state planner and the advisor counselor to j marshall and francis marshall at the time and even jet he prepared the trust as well as their history or any relationship at all with this father unrelated father jay marshall they knew him best and what they didn't participate they didn't do anything in the made now inquiries at that time they had no reason to know because they didn't existed were all held enjoyed kind of see up until that point in time that's correct where do you get the factual basis for that allegation simplex it's just strictly a conclusion here but based on what she told her family and the relationship and also what she did with her other  but simply because the two of them decided in their estate plan to put certain assets in the trust and perhaps certain assets someplace else or take the stock and transfer that from joint tenancy the million dollar transfer back using a document that is into the record it looks like to us that it's been used many times there's medallion guarantee signatures on now there's other documents on which there was no miguel and done  signature bankers have to come sit down with the person take their id or know them personally and talk with them about the transaction a little bit and then execute them down and signature even if they were to say they did not do that state plan to show that that touched that stock should not go back to the joint tenancy that it was held in other than simply invalidated this actions for there could be other results if the stock transfer were invalidated and there were no other duty to inquire when francis died that was what the trial court stated that my clients should have inquired prior to jay's death and that's three years before j died that's correct i keep coming back to th conclusionary allegations but my question deal his even if this we vacated his insanity bank and there was a hearing including respectfully judge if their evidence is presented that francis did not actually sign these documents didn't know what she was signed or who's going to say that went back to get a judge for saying that you know whatever may have happened in ninety two or three or four i'm not going be able to prove we've pled tortious interference we've put a conversion and we played fraud in effect of which is were it might be that france did know what she was signing was for medical history as we well know a little bit about it but we don't have the medical records as a court wouldn't let us look at it but clearly after this trust was signed right before she went  but to file a claim on the last day and we proceeded into litigation is our position that there was no delay by my that they acted as soon as they knew which is always the key to latch what did the plaintiff know and when in our case the pla to respond to that something that the poem is several guarding these depositions that it would take this proceeding has lasted three years he's filed no notices or sent out any subpoenas for all depositions no more three year period over a three year period sixty seven hundred pages of documents were turned over from the state so there has been substantial discovery yet they're still pleading that exist and form the second amended complaint that is their claim that it's largely conclus have the bobbin case which dictates the rule that someone doesn't have to have actual knowledge of the existence of facts to support their claim if the circumstances are such that they should be put on notice that they may have claim and inquire about in this case based on the the facts that are alleged in claiming second amended claim we know that they believe that there and it's and that sister in one case had stock that she don't that she brought into the marriage with j one hundred fifty four and they allege that as of nine hundred ninety three is worth millions of dollars and they also let's their belief that she intended for them to have that she dies they know she does her state's probate it's a public record claims notices published they do nothing they take no action they get nothing from the stay that alone was enough for the court to husband they could have called him they could have filed a claim in the probate estate there are any number of steps they could have taken through which they could have discovered he says they couldn't if they end up standing that's absolutely incorrect if they believe  big deal about what they didn't know prior to jay's that they say they didn't know they were beneficiaries of francis's trust in their own claim they allege they didn't learn about the trust took two thousand  that's true so at the time frances is death all they knew was that they were potentially going to inherit some money from their hands and they got nothing even more reason to hold them to that that minimal duty to inquire at that time and they didn't do it and as a result by waiting until j died the state is severely prejudice in its ability to defend against this cla and they make a lot about what jay's duty was to the claimants s trustee of francis trust he never had a duty under the terms of the trust section eight to file an counting to them his duty was to the current income beneficiary which would have been francis during your lifetime also if we look at the cited a case of the salver says turban one of the standards here that says the cour support j having any knowledge that these claimants were going to come forward at any time and make a claim in regard to the stock transfers that were part of their estate planning process back in one thousand nine hundred four if he had no no reason to give them any notice of anything so really it's not about what jay didn't do about his silence being somehow an intentional concealment of fraud it's about deceased would be difficult if not impossible for the court as merely to determine what their intent was at that time in regard to the funding of that plan in fact if looking at it just from the outside we plan they benefited both sides they didn't benefit beneath who knows why did this they chose it might be logical to presume that they chose to benefit jase children over her nieces and sister but i don't think that any further discovery any depositions are going to lead us to information about what the true intent was of francis marshall and j marshall when they went through that process until jay's death for inquiring at all as to their rights in her state yes potential back fisheries for legatees and the prejudice that caused by that department for thirty years the course said now you should done something if you're proud of that you're part of the corporation so to in where the all the other cases they're testamentary cases the parties run actual notice one way or the other inventory filed petition some other statement that someone says this is my farm the issue was joint out there was not in our case there was never a time when jay said you three people get nothing out of francis trust of no cash you never told anybody regarding their rights was all part and parcel of the scheme put in place in ninety four to avoid frances is the state of any cash before she went to the nurse and for that reason because he's first i think that's a key to the case and for that reason we w this court reverse the circuit court you for first team in the case in the summer of two thousand and five make it we guess that's when the claim period was going to expire december first correct and i filed on that day was  we were still trying to get issue when this case was dismissed so now there's never been a deposition of the medallion signatory bankers of this or just that or anybody else in the family or anybody or medicare providers but i sure would like to