it may be extend beyond those fifteen minutes because as the cases were interesting we want to give you more because we have were questions like jefferson and his collection agency under the theory that also instead money harvey paul and his law firm under the theory that mr wallis professional negligence allowed to steal the money and the third category defendants was the south bank now bank of america under the theory that the bank you committed a statutory conversion of the uniform commercial code by accepting these two checks for deposit after extensive litigation the court entered summary judgment for the bank and against him what henry holding the bank nothing wrong let me ask you regarding the summary judgment for the bank was that based on clear law that said the big did nothing wrong or was it based on information that was developed during the course of discovery well there was a rolling under under the law and based on some facts developed in  case what were the facts that they made a difference for the summary judgment motion because it seems to me that bank of america could have file that summary judgment nope motion virtually at the start of the case there's nothing there for to because it seems reasonable that that he for liability should be for the account holder should have to account for the attorney fees expended by the bank the account holder should be found to have done needed a trigger event i breathe or certainly has to be a triggering event the problem with the court's construction of contract was the work of the wrong for the truly the trigger event in his in your  the triggering event it's not whether the plaintiffs how the plaintiff's loss was just the triggering event is whether the bank takes an action under the resolutions and if that action taken under the resolution what would happen in a hypothetical case but if the bank does something wrong let's just say that there will be a hard case against the bank under these resolutions because the bank would as the other side would say well you breached the contract yourself you committed without demanding that the client show up with a picture right he right that's a good commercial practice right and the reason it works is because banks will trust lawyers who open i altered accounts to  makes sense that the bank would want to protect the self and say you know what mr walker you know what if you want to do business with us that's fine but a future whoever you choose to do business with it in if the person goes right it's your problem not ours and that one is bad is that is the how does how does mr waller say to the bank this is a frivolous lawsuit we don't want you to spend two hundred twenty five thousand dollars defending this lawsuit and then ask us for that money how do imagine a song some country sort of electrician i'm a sub contractor and a general contractor hires me to put all the outlets in a house the general contractor puts together the plans and specs and and hires my point that really indemnification covers everything except the bank's own network and so if the big is responsible for something or other then they have to cover their own fees but if they are if they were blameless maybe as the electrician maybe now indemnification applies regardless of and that and that's why i am precise runner that fault it's not our fault you're paid and if you don't like it you can go to the bank on the block why can't they do that i don't think they can or are currently because this is a but but you know everyone has a right to contract and so my question is if you have a situation and we all understand that mr waller's well you know nation sit with the bank would say that mr rogers it fall to the extent that he chose to do business know with regard to his conduct there was an intervening criminal lack that mr while you have any control over what wall pick also to do business with the bank of america didn't so when you're helping the rest why should the bank have to suffer because miss the the ultimate client never touched the money and she had possession of the money and then gets robbed by just rolls and that is the intervening act but she never got the money at all and so the question is if she's trying to bring in a deep pocket and says you know of bank of america or the south bank was partly responsible for my predicament and i'm suing them as well and the contract between mr waller in the bank s knew who the beneficiary of his legal action was going to be and that was the individual not the collection agency and so i think he had enough an obligation to make sure that she was me back to the scene and the question i had really and it is that the bank has a right to make a business decision that they are not willing to take their risk and so what they do when they decide that they are not willing to take that risk is that the lawyers sit down and they say well now we have to reach really have to write down any agreement and or we have to retreat after a trans policy how do we hear how can we make it any clearer to the courts that we've made a business suffered in connection with basically our business with wal mart so how can they make it any clearer but what would you have the banks say in this indemnity agreement to get them out of this if this isn't enough i'm sorry  her as well that's one thing that simply is unworkable but what's so let me go back to the original question what should bank of america have done to avoided this litigation what could they do the past year are possibility i think just as palmer has made it very clear that the parties allocate that risk and we have to uphold that contract i think i think the answer is that this goes this kind  we submitted into evidence we had a witness to support those b bills council held no expert witness and also didn't even call the circuit court judge ever reached a question of the reasonable problem we'd like to it's certainly your call but you know addressing every possible way to deal with an issue makes it less clear than maybe it should be fair enough