day garden fire protection district is one and in one nine hundred ninety seven the district in the department and turned into an agreement for a department between two different types of terminations of the contract one type was term asian without cause the other take was termination or if the agreement was terminated without cause then the assets of the fire department would remain with fire department and in april of twenty a law that the district sent a notice to the department to terminate the agreement without cause it was a six month notice require it such that the agreement would have terminated november in september of twenty eleven the department files a complaint against the district asking the court to order that he agreed it not be terminated due to some loans pending and also asking that the district be ordered to pay over certain tax revenues over which therefore the question is that a department has rates on appeal the first is the department is a not for profit corporation misappropriated funds by spending money is for political purpose the contracts with a garbage disposal company to pick up and that's a public service you know garbage and then and they pay them obviously with public monies to do that but then in that case between the fire department the fire district the allow those the fire department to misappropriate money that's been paid to it by fire destr e to adjust the cyprus issue likely that under the decatur case i don't believe that the department is a charitable charts though the district will likely bring up the riverton fire department case in which the court did find that the department and i was a charitable there couple of distinctions with the i department in this case including that it provides other services outside a fire department and it fire fighting and it does derive a significant amount sole stated services it would provide and that it was going to liquidate its assets we don't have that in this case the department chair the department charter listen number of other services it provides including the ambulance that was well could the members of the fire firm and say you know what we're tired of doing this it's their yours it's taking too much time out of our lives yeah yeah yeah we're done could they liquidate the assets and what would happen you know they sell  supplier of services for example of waste management company like us they're not those are for profit corporations alternatively the docking of cypre require that the assets of the department be turned over to my client the district because a department was no longer able to meet its primary shareable purpose which was providing fire protection to the citizens of gardiner that is a purpose but it is not the primary purpose of one thing that we need to remember is that it then don't you know that was executed explicitly required and provided that the fire department has been and always will be a not for profit volunteer fire department whose only reason this is quoting now for acquiring assets is to afford the residents of the fire protection district fire department based on the terms of that contract the riveting case explicitly help that a corporation is a term of trust if its primary use of property is for charitable purposes there is no doubt that the primary purpose and the primary use of the assets here were for fire cash is one interest there's a half a dozen trucks there's a there's a fire department building that's used the primary purpose here was fire percent was emitted from public funds to arms and then tax revenue we don't know exactly what younger forty five percent is i presume is primarily that is primarily  isn't the question the question is whether or not my client who had exclusive or head be vested contractual discretion to determine if there is in this progression abused its discretion maintenance of the property of the building and the venus why in the world with acting in there if they could use their assets in any way that they saw fit once we pay for it they could it wasn't the only reason there were five stated reasons the first one was the divorce transcripts eating the seconds eight thousand dollars spent on attorneys to try to close a trustee that also helps asian to share the third a few thousand dollars  spent on bar tabs and restaurant bills before it was another process in two thousand dollars for checks that had a blank page e and the fed was forty seven thousand dollars for a credit card bill they refused to provide an accounting for don't remember my point can only assess taxes for purposes of which it's authorized to collect and let me taxes and the department refusing to account for these amounts and these they were all paid for out of checks from an account mar dinners i don't have a i don't have a crystal ball but i can tell you that we had evidence this wasn't arbitrary the evidence was the checks they came out of the funds that we were passing to that was and those wherefore explicitly stated that the department was i'm sorry that that think the purpose of the denim was to address quote the assets and equipment being acquired by the governor volunteer fire department with payments received from the fire protection district pursuant to this country that's in the where for the where for then says our only purpose department only purpose for acquiring those assets is to provide fire destroys the fact that their purpose was to provide fire protection and somehow means that they can use their monies in any way they see fit ignores the plain language of the stache outside playing into the contract contract said the whole purpose of it was to determine what's going to happen with these assets you're buying with public money in this case that the cost was misappropriation right correct the numerated reasons and then you would right we can not once the district found out that their monies will be used for improper purposes purposes that we could not use them not only did we were we allowed to terminate for cause use our discretion which was used without it being arbitrary they were required it was incumbent at that point on the fire protection district to terminate for cause because we found out the contractor wasn't doing what it said it would do it was only supposed to be once a public body pays money to a non public non governmental organization this is still public money well it all depends on that faction area in this case we have a contract which explicitly provided what monies were supposed to be useful and so on in my case it was deluded and the reasonable person argue there's a question of fact is what money was being used for that whether it was the money you gave them or whether it was the money from the chicken frie what we know is that there was misappropriation occurring is it all public money they were misappropriating funds they were not doing what they contracted to do and we only gave them the money with the understanding  can't determine them but we do know that that's where all our deposits went into that public funding account that was then used and that was the basis of our misappropriation it wasn't arbitrary the question there is is there any realize that public bodies are being used for an improper purpose we take no action we're in violation of constitutional violation of that act we would not be protecting the public assets and we begin to trust above it would be completely a charitable trust exactly what we have here and once your purposes primary purpose ended those assets have to be turned over to try to protect that charitable interest as close as possible and that's what's happened here i just quickly to address the case again because the facts are admittedly very similar in this case the court there specifically found that the department's so long standing purpose was to provide fire protection services and that the fire department indicated it no longer intended to provide services and it didn't plan to liquidy convert those assets for not actually services so again we have other stated purposes listed in our charter and actions and