good morning i'm mary marshall indeed i have this right to marry marshman the attorney for the appellant john lawson beneficiary the trust's issue i'm happy to answer any questions you have i understand it's not for me to make a pitch at this point right well you may present your argument whatever you think is important for us to know well i my my proof to it attempted to lay out how trusts should be administered and how trustees should interact with their beneficiaries and each one of the underlying cases including the two thousand and six one in arizona the two thousand and thirteen one in los angeles and two thousand and fifteen  e in reno nevada were brought to it too well the two thousand and thirteen and fifteen months were brought to try to bring the trustee william lawson to abide by his duties to his younger brother john lawson and to distribute it to properly account for and to distribute the funds that came into the trust the biggest challenge was that bill directly payable to john as i equal one sixth beneficiary with bill bill and john are all beneficiaries of the same master trust maritime trust and  extreme circumstances in order to obtain any benefits of the health and welfare trust so what that basically did was cut john down to twenty percent and that twenty percent was was calculated as of the original cash funding irrevocable trust at about forty three thousand dollars so basically as of february two thousand and eight  bill told john that he had no more money and that trust subsequent to two thousand and eight in two thousand and eleven money started pouring in from the maritime trust which were john's share of maritime funds came into the  trust and that money was there from thereafter locked up by bill because he didn't account for the incoming class as course i understand your cl it's very unhappy about the history of the management of these various trusts i appreciate that but as i understand this record there was a settlement agreement that was entered into between your client and the lawsons that resolved all of these because bill on the opening paper in los angeles spent twenty eight thousand dollars in attorney's fees and his attorney larry bemis stood in the hallway on our first appearance and said he will of spam the trust to zero unless john gives bill a release and twenty thousand dollars out of a cash trusted at that time the original trust had now would have been all spent down by attorneys fees and costs so when you were told by opposing counsel that you're not going to get any benefit of any trust unless you get another court order we sort of put it the children understood the statement to be that if we keep litigating this case this the trust is going to be spent down to virtually nothing that seems to me to be a realistic assessment of what was going on here and the lawyers were being paid money was being spent and it seemed prudent to resolve the case and eliminate the continuing expenditure of attorney fees that doesn't make what bill was doing lawful or consistent because he had a duty to disclose to john well but i guess i'm troubled here by the fact that he had counsel and you apparently advised him to sign the agreement notwithstanding all of this problematic on to influence and the like if he had c but the problem was that if he did not accept bill's cramdown at that time and remember that bill never told john how much of that info in flocks of hundred fifty two thousand dollars was going to go to john vs going to tiffany who question did you ever tell the judge in the case that your client was signing this agreement under duress yes i did explain that and i testified to it and it was in our  to spend down and so i'm wondering what we're the district court went wrong well because if we spent if bill's attorney spent twenty eight thousand dollars on the first paper going through judge that what you just said it's in the trial transcript it can you give me a page sir and i also included e mail exchanges with mr b masterwork my question is can you give us a and me around between march and june of two thousand and eleven ok and it said in your brief yes good morning may it please the court my name is janice proctor murphy with the law firm of fenimore craig on behalf of apple is bill lawson and sharon and draco the issue before this court is whether the trial court following a two day bench trial properly held that john lawson's alleged theories of rescission illegality undue influence and coersion based on economic to russ failed to provide a basis to set aside the settlement agreement given that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law or amply supported by the evidence as well as the applicable law the judgment below should be affirmed like to start off by just commenting on a couple of questions that were asked opposing counsel miss lindi the question judge cool was did she ever tell the judge that her client was signing the agreement under und influence and i think there was just a miscommunication mis lundy in fact during the trial in two thousand and fifteen bill did tell that judge that she thought her client signed it under a new digital and were correct but she never told the judge in the california petition that when that was filed that she thought that her client was being required to settle under undue influence and in fact dismissed the matter without ever communicating to the court ms lynndie also referenced an exchange of e mails between her and my client's counsel at the time mr bemis and those communications the most that was said is he was settling because he thought he needed the money for health concerns at the same time your honor in those saying email exchange my client's attorney indicated that he would certainly paid a johns he expenses if he submitted those funds verified not funds if he submitted verified documented medical expenses that those would be paid the trial record shows that at no time was any medical bills submitted sense two thousand and eight from john to bill i'd like to just touch briefly on the three bases of rescission and basically why the trial court decided as it did the first basis was illegality illegality under california probate code sixteen thousand four point five and in that basis of alec illegality and that is the sole argument of that code section provides that you can't require in exchange for mandatory distributions you cannot require that you get a release in exchange for a mandatory disk since that code section your honor is holy and applicable here because of the discretionary nature of this trust all payments to john were discretionary in fact the primary beneficiary of this trust was john's daughter tiffany for her education and support and after the reform of the trust and two thousand and six in arizona even those discretionary distributions could only be made if there were dire an extreme circumstances were verified second in this case the trial court found the bill never required a release in exchange for mandatory distributions that was a factual finding given it is a bench trial that factual finding is reviewed for substantial deference as to undue influence is this court knows that is excessive pressure that overcomes the party's free will courts look at a totality of circumstances in this case the trial court correctly found th free will can be overcome when they're represented by counsel your honor i think that in fact there's a couple cases that state that when a client is represented by counsel and i think that's the thing cases that we cited and our brief in connection with an agreement when someone is represented by counsel in the terms of the agreement are fair then that shows that the agreement is is fair and  they're being represented properly thank you i think that two things are important to no one judge gold as you just mentioned that in fact john was represented throughout these entire settlement negotiations that lasted several months by counsel second the trial court made a determination that settlement agreement was fair and equitable john's basis of saying that he needed to settle was his health condition that he needed money for his health condition in fact what the records showed that he claimed he needed money for rotting teeth at the time the records showed he had a six thousand dollars credit with his dentist at that time in addition there was no evidence presented the johns anticipated medical expenses exceeded his need there were no requirements imposed on john to sign the agreement on a certain day or in a certain manner he signed it at his attorney's office with his attorney present when she thought he was capable of doing it there was no communication between john and bill and john and his attorney importantly understood both of them testified at the time they entered in this agreement it was final and binding what about what about the claim by miss lindsay that the primary reason why john signed the agreement  s to avoid the threat of spending down the trust well your honor the record doesn't support that in fact the record in the testimony of his deposition some of the statements in the hallway that allege statement of funding spending the funds down to zero did not enter into his equation he was concerned about the medical expenses but the trial court found that no such threat was made basically it was an observation that we find this litigation to be meritless and therefore if you continue on it we will be required to defend it it's important to note that the terms of the trust allow in fact the trustee to use trust monies to defend a lawsuit and in fact there was a reason to defend the lawsuit because again tiffany is the primary beneficiary john's daughter of this trust and so it was reasonable for bill to say can were options available to them john and his counsel were aware that all they needed to do was submit medical bills and those medical bills were paid there was a statement that john did not know how much money was in the trust in fact the record will show in august of two thousand and twelve almost prior to the settlement that an accounting was sent to ms lindy and indicated those funds were in the account and  so all of the information it's important to note there is no fact here that wasn't known at the time that the settlement agreement was entered into this is not a situation where a new trustee takes over and after the new trustee takes over then they find facts that cause them concern every fact here was known finally just to wrap up there is no economic  for the same reasons of undue influence there is no overcoming of someone else well and there's simply no evidence that bill who never even took took a trustee fee did anything untoward here for those reasons your honor trust maritime trust was john's share of the family trust and it was chipped and he was not a beneficiary of that and therefore to say to say that there is one hundred thirty two thousand dollars accounted for doesn't comply with bill's obligation to defied those sons between himself and tiffany because the way he left it in two thousand and six was that money in the irrevocable trust the i t was eighty percent tiffany's and twenty percent john's but that was before the maritime trust money came in to the irrevocable trust in violation of the terms of the trust because those were not supposed to be merged and therefore john's hundred percent interest in one hundred fifty two thousand dollars got put into the irrevocable trust with node declaration from bill how much of that hundred fifty two was available to john because the last time he told john in two thousand and eight that his his share was exhausted there was no subsequent statement from bill that any part of that hundred fifty two was available to him and how much was available to tiffany and no distributions were made out of that hundred  fifty to one sic a man so that was the crux of the problem is that john was basically disinherited from his share of the maritime trust and bill would not give him any of that without a hear the next case for argument which is sued and may be pronouncing that wrong versus cosco