the state courts secular was a national mission and if that had been recognized for grant it would have foreclosed any other evidence to the contrary i think the issue of whether this is an admission whether it's usually mission are all the first things to talk about cause if that's not the judicial admission then that's an issue is it no it certainly is it's not but the the statement that she made was the scene and i had an agreement to leave our farm land to my four children so the spouse of four children with her and leave a trust for his michael in order to answer your question i think in the way you think about first of all the the exact scene and representing the same shelves and we said she's saying i believe that there was a trust read that but but you have to look at the card you'll case as well and the admission includes not only the words that are spoken but the facts that it tends to prove if they thought there was a trust for hazel in their will they both misunderstood the will and not saying the one understood it one bit but they believe that that is the admission there's no question but there is some assistance on this point indepen same and in effect he's saying she's right my wife is right there's a trust in both worlds and that means that he's saying the same  believe there was a trust in my will there is my understanding and my interpretation of my will that there was a trust for hazel in my will executor as executor and agent for the estate and standing in his place makes the admission i believe what my mother said my mother said there were trusts in both will brothers and mine if she's saying that's true then one of those trust one of those will have to be run and she say there's a trust in both and the executor chimes in and s on behalf of the state standing in the place of the decision she's right i believe it to that's how you connect her to the estate his will is through his executive who shall v statins in his place and in his state you don't want the different types of missions but there may be is describing what we think is the proper pigeonhole for an executive and he's under the surface admission by party opponent i'm reading course the statement is offered against i have convinced i can see that i don't know what else to do other than to say that the law has changed somewhat as to hearsay and admission the nature of the job of the executive is so different than any typical quite curious situation but argument falls down so if i was right enough at the time this started i would have had her resign as executor and then testimony would not be a judicial admission that should not be the policy that now this idea of judicial admission is based on this inference that the statement by the wife be attached to the husband as if it was his intent and his understanding there is absolutely no evidence in this proceeding about any statement burden coffman ever made there's just this claim inference because the wills are the same there was an agreement in our  different structure for their trusts now that to me is very important in this idea of the judicial admission that the executor is supposed to have the standing instead of the individual it vernon kaufman says made this statement we have a lot more only to the argument that it was kaufman in a very informal conversation which is reported by christine so we could so karen could have not stated it correctly i e there's a trust hazel's family christine could not have may not have remembered it correctly we should not be applying as a judge appears he pointed out this idea that a wordsmith yes the lawyers who were smith and he would describe this as the trust for the family but a laban should be charged with bad detail and that preciseness when they're describing what's in their will now the second reason this idea of judicial admission doesn't hold up is this claim that christine has adopted the state now christine says i believe what my mother said that i believe that this is what she believes that doesn't mean it's true and and for a  at mission this day that passed the dotted line the person making the statement that was made by another person as if it was their own christine rochelle made it very clear she didn't know what the intent was she had been told what the estate plan she had read the wills so all she was saying is yes my mother said this to me that's all she will say and that's all the farther we should make it but mr allison is trying to take the next one because she is a representative who has to be true because she said and that's just not the case and should not be the policy and the law read a lot yes he only had eighth grade education but he bred a lot and he was a very good business person even dr norton indicated in his testimony that he had admiration and an appreciation for vernons kaufman's business accu what testimony we do have about reading ability is that the a marital deduction will has complicated language in it not the burning couldn't read it not the burn and couldn't understand it just that it's complicated it's difficult technical language and in fact the testimony of the expert who said yes this is difficult language was i didn't know the person i don't know his ability to read or his level of knowledge it ask for the will to be overturned and and this little contest started as a mental capacity issue and turned into once christine reported what her mother said it turned into a judicial admission and again that should not be the law or the policy that we adopt as a state now mr allison does lots of trial work and he's much more knowledgeable about judicial admissions and the niceties of that the night i write a lot of wills i administer a lot of the states and i make determinations about people's mental capacity if we adopt the point of view that mr allison is advocating we're going to throw this idea of what it takes to have testamentary capacity into disarray because under his in the will overturns the mental capacity of the test paper because by this inference of agreement and what i said that he didn't understand it either because and he and i had this agreement again that's going to please put this issue of testamentary capacity in disarray because if we require every testator's who does a marital deduction will because they have yes making up a plan yes but as to this he did not you can i can hire you can avoid the supreme court's decision saying they have to have sufficient capacity to know been made and effect of that act  it's not necessarily if you have a mission you don't go behind the admission that person party while versus senator fourth district longstanding says if you if you're going to make a statement you better find out now they're saying that we didn't she didn't adopt this the role says you can either doctors or you can