easiest appeal is probably ever come before a panel this court at santa live  judges know that the next question is what's the definition of trustees fees when in fact they entered into that agreement and it's clear because the reference in the condominium conv trust hermie cannot be amended without the consent of the trust in every person with a beneficial interest and that's another issue because the association holds a majority now the beneficial interest and they objected to the reason most of it and what's also important is that there's a managing agent for this kind of mini i'm by statute and by the declaration of the condominium so the management of the condominium is done by the magic age who does everything so the only thing left for the trustee is to accept a couple of checks and now there's only five beneficiaries and hand out checks responsibility or are you trying to argue separately that your contract doesn't incorporate whatever that determination is the key here to escape all working for you answer my question is not the side what my client had to pay it was right and you're right about that ok if you do sure right now they decided what what the trust agreement provides with regard to the appropriate thing and the about limitations on the truck on the trustees fee it talks about the fact the trustee feet can't be changed without mutual consent of the beneficiaries which was denied  my client entered into an agreement this is a commercial lease you can look at the definition of trustee fee for purposes of what my client agreed to and the meeting of a dispute and my clients are ok i'll make it live a hundred dollars but the bank came in for the probate court and said first i want to twenty five thousand month then the probate court said ok we'll give you ten thousand and the probate court didn't then allow discovery then explain how it came to that amount but then the probate court very important the probate court said we're not going to decide who has to pay we're going to take that money out of the beneficiary share and leave it to the u s district court to decide who is going to pay now what the district court needed to do was to decide what the trustee  and wasn't the same there's a confusion here you you can't keep on calling something trustee fee and obviously the trustee decided they wanted to expand and build something equivalent then pirate state building my claim would client is only liable contractually under his obligation contract to what was agreed upon and the trustee fee is specifically defined in the trust agreement we were conditioned also it can't be changed with a mutual agreement consent of the beneficiaries and there was never consent the association's now the beneficiary with over sixty i think sixty seven percent and they refuse decide you get a certain percentage so we'll make it ten thousand because what we want to keep you well the probate court can do but it can change the contractual agreement of the parties i thought the contract what with you because the condominium conveyance document volume three of the excerpts the record page three twenty four per graph twelve pacifically says that buys a shopping center and he assumes an obligation at that time which is five hundred dollars a month and now balloons the ten thousand dollars a month or whatever theoretically they could shoot confusion of this was in terms of what was agreed upon not what subsequently was decided in the probate court and the probate court judge was smart he said i'm not going to decide who has to pay presumably somebody could pay a part of it somebody could pin other part of it so the probate court left that to the district court judge and the district court judge had an obligation to decide what the trustee fee was in terms of the that agreement otherwise my client would be out of business one of the one of the probably course i will twenty five thousand well we don't it's clear from counsel's argument and his brief before this court that precisely what he is arguing you today is that the district court should have overturned the probate court's decision and that's  concerns a judgment by the state court a final judgment that someone is running to federal court to try to overturn right and that's not what happened here that's not what happened here but what you do have is i'll say it's a different if anything applies is it's honour's is in the i c a decision the bruisers actually raise the issue of their liability the same issue that was before the us district court and now the probate court in its decision although wasn't raised below decided to take  case they read in their briefing to the intermediate court of appeals and the court noted in its opinion that it's unusual because they didn't raise this issue below it's race for the first time appeal but we're going to go ahead in the dresser and they actually found they reviewed the lesser all fees and expenses charged during her by the lesser as trustee under the trust agreement is that an arbitrary number any charges it's open and can be any no your honor because if you look at the trust agreement it says th fee has to be reasonable now counsels hypothetical that the you know the trustee could go out and buy some huge other piece of property and start charging preposterous because the ultimate limitation is a court looking at it and saying this is unreasonable that's what we have here we have the probate court who looked at the ninety eight fifty feet which actually was a compromise fee among all the parties before the although the a o l and the bruisers did not were not a part of that compromise there was a court looking at it to finally say whether it was reasonable or not and that's what the u s district court deferred to was that amount in finding that that so i think the only issue in this case is regarding the ripper fellman doctrines application to the bruisers request to look at the fee under the trust of us assume that  all the time including if you factor jurisdiction if you agree that the court has jurisdiction issues or try i think well that's not true but if you agree that there is no jurisdiction is that different it's interesting good job thank you thank you i think the panel may have already answered some questions and that is all parties conceded that were feldman precludes any litigation of the reason most of the feet and having conceded that  really did get into this question of the recent most of the fifty the i c u looked at in some detail we have a statute in hawaii section six zero seven eighteen away revised statutes the deals with compensation of trustees and it says that trustees are entitled to reasonable fees and therefore they are limited the hypoth tical of could you agree to the empire state building the that's not the case and the reasonable compensation may be set forth in their published fee schedules the intermediate appeals opinion at page twenty five specifically says look this is a scheduled feed therefore it is presumptively reasonable by statute and therefore we're going to confirm we're going to affirm the lower court's decision and that's the basis upon which concocted basically it does because the condominium conveyance references the trust agreement every lawyer knows you're going you're going to have to look at the terms  what you're saying that there is that there is some distinction but there is no such separate separation anywhere in the relevant documents i think there is because my my client is a contract the the statu contract between the parties and that that's my point that this is not to the wise supreme court this is not a discretionary appeal is a method to repeal because we're claiming it violates due process of law but if if you've read the i c decision they say well no where do you do you challenge the jurisdiction of the probate court until you you know got a bad result that's paid only not true