plain when it said the allegation that a prior will existed is sufficient allegation of an expectancy that's exactly what we have here the march twenty seventh two thousand and twelve will was executed by the disputed just a few months before she ended up taking the fall making her hit in may and then having a very swift decline in her health until her death in september of two thousand and twelve so that expectancy has been established by that march twenty seventh two thousand and twelve will in the confusion and much of the analysis of the tort of interference with testamentary expectancy is in boy third party witnesses also said that she treated them like family and what's even more telling is that in may when she first comes to the hospital in may she lives during each as her next of ki one of these cases is what's the relationship between the defendant and the testator and that relationship they focus on whether there was a position of dominance or control by the defendant is over the test there and here we have a situation where ten steward without the knowledge without the consent of development became her power of attorney over her property took over the management of her businesses then we have made a pact with who also became a partner turning over her health care behalf and therefore somehow instead of her next of kin instead of the person she listed as the person to contact pappas a call and harass her becomes her healthcare power of attorney then we have shame and shane was also mike eric and steve morrow one of her boys very much a friend of the routes of a very close relationship that's the second factor that these courts look to the  factor is a very strong factor because with its behalf of the deceit it what was the health of that the testator like when they were executing this will that's in question and here we have the situation we're the so august september less than three months before she executes this september will she is rendered in not the ten by her doctors and it's not just her incompetence she distress she has altered mental status on july twenty fifth she's feeling stressed on august twenty fifth the doctor says she is close to death has altered mental state in the twenty two different medications that he suffered five minutes that because of her illness that she could be with it one second and that was that the next second that it could it could change any moment but he felt that at the five minutes he saw her that she was ok now my point that i make in my previous is her signing that you know i was actually in violation of the health care sergant act that act which was invoked on to write night stated that this person but the courts have sat that it's important to things it's important because the amount of evidence that such a weighty element or factor that the courts consider that plea though you say you don't even have to have the best evidence you need on these other factors if supplemental production we find notes in kevin stewart's calendar that says and i'm going to quote it on july twenty seventh stewart great still valid the it's eighteen hours of oxygen a day mental state on top of each page and witnessed by that that that do it in the morning that that that the new influence that that that doesn't take a life to make a will that that that he knew he knew it she was in because well i don't know why but she lied to them and told them that drugs and was just fine was going to be home soon and would not tell anybody where she was a hat her friends and way the  family saw her best friends didn't care about her so we've got a situation where that only is there the misleading statements that are made on the same day that they're trying to get her to change her well same day so when the case is so that the misleading statements have to be made in conjunction with the execution or the procurement of the well we've got the same day it happens in august they have multiple meetings and then at the end of august after they've met after stewart calls kaplan and says come to rather wants to change or well what happens is when you have one gets that steward tells her tells him staff and had significant conversations about her mental state on september thirteenth the day of the will not incidental cop conversation such as fraud dress or undue influence and a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realised before that interference damages now for the sake of argument i don't have a problem with saying that that exists so in the same lines here i think knowledge as a requirements has a place now she avoids talking about the treatment after that act and her release back to the nursing home once she has returned essentially back to normal she is end and that they received substantial benefits because they were paid a fee and administering her or her accounts and or is acting as the executor of the state while one this isn't this is all it takes to make a rebuttal presumption i'm do influence virtually every attorney who is acting in this capacity and receiving a fee would be subject to this bubble presumption of dependent who is not on this appeal in getting her will executed because he was not available on the day that he needed to bring it to the hospital there's no evidence of fraud out there that she's asking for an exception to the attorney client without really applying it to any documents or testimony it's just sort of in a vacuum and it's not really an issue that this court needs to address at this time court i think that my co counsel of more than adequately addressed all of the various if used for the court and many of the issues raised in the briefs actually don't apply to my clients so honestly the only reason that i'm up here as if there are still any lingering questions to any of you have with regards to issues of what could go to shame burrows if that i represent and i will gladly answer those questions however if there are no questions i will simply ask that you affirm the decision of the lower court issues raised in the attorney's presentation first of all the case law has stated that the mental state of the deceit it is relevant for two years prior to the execution of the w and even after the well so this this finite laser focused on just september thirteenth is is contrary to the law often in each one of these cases that they talk about the his mental and physical health years prior and even after the execution of the well so the five minutes that dr bailey saw throughout simply is a minute point and what's most important  that there are predictions in the evidence that are all over the evidence from reno saying that she didn't know anything about the will well we have testimony from a third party saying she all that her very  that something exists doesn't jump to knowledge and tenses of the certainly certainly so we have a complete denial in the deposition that there was any conversation ok but then we have we get after the depositions this documentation from story and stewart writes on august hot chamber of those interest will protect it has a blue lake that's one of the rails properties also states where is to rouse well then said that he has a private then he has a meeting with stewart and stewart has a meeting with rena  and says i apologize i'll just get it one second here and i'm not finding it directly but i will find it but he has in his notes and it's in my brief as well that he has a meeting where he specifically says meeting with balance of well that's the not so balance of well with reno and the office set up some meeting then he has text messages where marina asks did you get your business done thursday well first it was september thirteenth the day that he w she says you can sign a d n r so she he sees her for five minutes and says she can sign a d n r whether she has test test metairie capacity whether she's competent there's a conflict in the output and i think that's where we get to right tortious interference and anytime there's a conflict of interest it evidence first of all it goes to the jury ok and then we have the entrances from all these meetings that are being had in august about her the misleading statements about my client trashing her property and then saying well you know better to stuart has the meeting and says you better take him out of your well so he there's all this influence in august all happening at the same time to to get her to change take them out of the well there's differences to be made by the fact that she's keeping people away she's not letting her friends come and see her she's not telling she's lying about how her state of mind and saying she's physical state you know the misleading statements so we have this and great mistake of c c r q x the first sister case in ninety three where both parties submitted evidence very similar actually to this case where you the would will decide and the court says you've got to give it to the jury it's particularly inappropriate to draw the inference is as the judge it must be getting to the jur