rights of the parties to distribute deficits as they see fit and this is the usual and an optional agreement what's yours is yours what's mine is mine to do with it as we want in life or in that including if we want to leave to one another we can do that but we're free to do with it as we well three sections in the end and enough to agreement which controls that and then there's an additional section tacked on at the end of the i'm not sure agreement which says the last one testament bequeath all of his personal effects household goods automobiles chattels and the marital residence two doors climb line the surviving spouse yeah probably additionally that was a breach of contract the trial judge looking at the ambiguity of the agreement with these presumably conflicting provisions determined that the choice agreement was unambiguous and summary judgment was fate entered in favor of the apple leave the surviving spouse to resolve this case the court has to address the trial court indicates apparently a draft will was drafted by glenn's attorney how a hand which was consistent with the and enough full agreement but was never signed all of  against that was considering the case just came about through the presentation of the pleadings and through oral art is just anecdotal evidence there was no presentation of facts no presentation of evidence because this was a question while it's true that if a contract is ambiguous once it's deemed ambiguous a court can look to the conduct of the parties as an aid to construction and what their green was supposed to mean but it's inappropriate for the  court to consider that information without first making that determination that the contract is ambiguous not to mention in this case the existence of the draft will should have remained subject to attorney client privilege there's no question given that it's an order that the trial court is using the existence of a draft will as evidence of what was intended or what are we going to take from the courts finding that based on this finding on the four corners in the en appears to be in conflict with actually what was cited in court what was said or what was said but what in the record suggests that that was relied on when the trial court which you know is the one making that determination says i making this based on the four corners of the instrument which presumably the trial court would actually cite to its transit evidence that was presented through the pleadings if it wasn't actually using that so it would be completely extremes it would have no bearing upon its role and we're going back to be real careful in future opinions and rule twenty three orders not to say anything that we don't later rely on if there is an enormous amount of its strength or cabinets there is additional strength evidence i would say that would anecdotal evidence about what was intended by the parties additionally rules of construction that the park lies should not be used unless the contract is first deemed to be and big and that and it goes into great detail as the underpinnings of its it is it a rule of construction that requires ambiguity when you decide one section is more specific than the other it is a rule of construction work i guess it is but is it a rule of construction controls that's a principal wall in contract work does that mean that the whole insurance contract or the holy church policy was ambiguous or is it mean that you read it as it was written i appreciate your point i'm not sure that there is any law which distinguishes that this is a roll of construction that is allowed prior to a determination of a and there are cases obviously cited by the apple e and those are specifically olson and premier title instances where this and then there were there was no discovery in that regard that i recall specifically there was no presentation on those issues so there was no bigger picture in terms of tr evidence i suppose of some kind typically when there's a determination that a contract is and gave us that's what it's going to do and it's going to allow determine what the surrounding circumstances were when that contract was entered into in this case our contention is is that these provisions deal with the exact same subject matter in very specific ways and that they are so contrary to one another that the presentation of  but if he said that screwed up i shouldn't have those section three and there are the sections that conflict with the more specific section nine or whatever section it is he says that was the form i use i didn't read it carefully they corners of the contract i think if you did there would also be serious questions about who could testify as to being tempted to see them given the dead man's but those are all questions about events seems to me general the two cases cited by the apple leaves on that issue olson and premier title when you look at the entire cases it's very clear they were able to say when we look at the whole contract we can determine what the intention of the whole contract is and that way you modify you're able to look at the general provisions in light of the intention of the entire contract and in those instances they were able to say with these apparently conflicting provisions the one that was deemed to be more specific that's representative of what the contract was while all this is not an end stance where  if you have several provisions that say you can do what your property to do with your property or whatever you like in life or in that with no one conferences and then a separate provision that says you must do with your property upon your work that x y and z those two things are completely in conflict and on the exact same subject matter they are both specific provisions on that subject the distinction that you have to leave tries to make and that the court made order is that well the provision that says you must leave your probably x y and c it uses the individual names it doesn't say part because all of these other provisions which constitute ninety plus percent of preferred part and so that's what makes this specific provision as opposed to all the others which should be characterized as boilerplate and ignored as a result but it's completely arbitrary obviously the term parties is a defined term and are we to ignore every provision that uses the term parties by virtue of it now being general provisions  general vs specific is an issue of subject matter it's not an issue of how the parties three mean absolutely nothing so the other three mean nothing if we accept section nine is no correct you're going to completely ignore and that's why we say that th change the what it what those sections hold in terms of what can be done that it just includes other other issues it just says what you can do with it and why or upon that and to then ignore of the court time that had that been it and its own paragraph number would have made a difference that seems relatively arbitrary as well what we're saying is these are so fundamentally  the practice that irrespective of any other terms in this contract to the contrary the party shall x y and z that without the mornings know what that would be a stretch from my perspective if if that term earth that phrase had been used that might have been instructive but i'm not sure that that's the same thing ok so back to my question what does i'm not sure ok illinois law supports and forces prenuptial agreements the prenuptial agreement that when first client line executed from our perspective is clear as to what it requires their respect of the state plans to provide you just said i can do whatever i want with as far as i can give it to anybody i give to you i can take it away i can sell it i can give it to a show girl in las vegas whatever i want to do you can do anything about  choice of words were unnecessary could lead a reader down the wrong path could cause an ambiguity about whether she went out executable compliance with this section nine of the agreement will that come into evidence i suppose it could come in but i don't know the relevance of of that well if you find it's a big us you're looking to determine the inten recently the trial judge was faced with the four corners of the document rule on the circumstances presented just like in the in the line of cases that are cited where you have these you know potentially but that these that section nine has more specific embodies the party's agreement with regard to their state planning obligations and that's the other provisions but you're not going to see that with a form that was that was crafted specifically for the parties of this  based on that hypothetical i think there would be a fair argument for doris or anybody in her position to say that this agreement created an obligation on his behalf to pass his property i will and leave the stage of her i think that argument could be made under under the facts that you proposed that there would be some sort of constructive obligation structure trusting posed upon his assets i don't know if that would be money and somebody cries foul after the the wife actually passed away for the mr olson and the court essentially said no the overall intent was that half of that money would go to this  he was free to do so but also indicated that his client probably would have been in a position of standing here arguing constructive trust that it violated the intent dr and that goes to my main point is that we  this is a contract that in one part seems to create a spouse a right to some of these assets it's it's just inconsistent to say no he could've divorced or kept everything could have given it all away lin