is without proper work on tax to illinois for purposes of the court having jurisdiction be it in ram quasi in ram or in personas to any of action to be considered state or limping while the trial court found that stone was unnecessary party or indispensable whatever word you want to use to me that means the case cannot go the trust to do something and the only available trust needed to execute that order on behalf of the trust is mr stone and he's clearly an indispensable party his and he's in the race within the point where mr stone was designated as the trustee for that was in july of two thousand and six rights in february two thousand and six ok at that time the sadness of the trust it's not disputed was in to your position that's right sure i'm how you read some of whether you read sullivan two requests and agree with solomon back you analyze a whole variety of factors to determine where ambiguity in the document but i'm saying two things i'm saying this number one is that if you look at the trust agreement it is not like any other case cited by anybody where it contemplated a change in the si trust so for going would be strictly with the intent of the branch or the settler it was contemplated that the site the site this would change ok but i think you have to be more doesn't mean illinois law illinois is the only for a let's get back to the quote d initial threshold question if that is the court's personal jurisdiction over mr stone ok when mr stone accepted the role of the trustee it's clear that he did he did ok he also received the proceeds from merrill lynch yes that was she then deposited an affordable yes could it be argued that by accepting by merrill lynch that the trust assets were ever in illinois ok at any time it was a basically your argument that by becoming the trustee he didn't subjective certainly didn't subject himself to the jurisdiction of the illinois jurisdiction of illinois i demand which he became the trustee my best case is this is that under sullivan you have to look at five things ok the documents where the trustee is ok where the beneficiaries are or where the trust illinois i previous trustee by misters at the time mr stone accepted the trust assets in july of zero six what had occurred was that it had communication with people at merrill lynch where the place of the ministration was and when we talk about the silence of the trees i don't think we we gain much by immediately talking about  jurisdiction that would seem to satisfy according to sharing according to a later cases as well that whatever is required under due process minimal contact here as state until two thousand and seven but he was the trustee aim it through thousand and six so a whole year went by before he designated florida ok what does that mean that he could act with impunity no  well who would have jurisdiction over his male faeces you still have to consider where is the trust being a minister and when can we cited that versus mice case respect talks about doing the basis of jurisdiction and doing business the continuity of doing business under the longarm statute satisfied the road to require substituted for the requirement of physical presence therefore under ok ok but what we're talking about here is the jurisdiction of the state all over the property which is either in reality about quasi in ram jurisdiction we are not talking about simply an implied consent beat up by virtue of having done something and acting on that property but here it seems to me that your concern is that stone would say there's no jurisdiction over me anywhere with the position i'm taking i don't agree with that i think it's twisted around saying is this is that what merrill lynch wants argument is that by filing the lawsuit in illinois as an extra us the bet has created personal jurisdiction over mr stone that is their we have but there is there is no fact of any property in illinois yeah i'm a i'm a back you up a little bit i think your issue is don't jump to that because i'm more wrong than right at least hopefully  foreign land convenience argument they're charging downhill ok you have to agree i totally agree ok the problem would you have it seems to me is that the underlying issue in this case which is really to protect the rights of the beneficiary to subsequently sue merrill lynch for any malfeasance while they were trustees can be filed anywhere what you're concerned about of course is that the circuit court in cook county might give them a complete discharge ok or that it could be determined to be somehow race judicata with respect to any rights that the beneficiaries might yeah potential liability to a former group of beneficiaries all right they've got to go somewhere we're not saying they can't go anywhere or do the frontline convenience business because we're you know we're talking about here is the right of merrill lynch to finally get this charge that will keep them hopefully from not being sued down the line by the beneficiaries for what they did a decade ago but at least getting a resolution is to where they can defend that particular potential cut administration of the trust actually a sin no more actually in illinois and there is no fact that it was and it's their burden to say that that it was now we need we need to move on then we got to hear from the other side to we we've given you quite a bit of he's right about the fact that you know you guys when you responded in this particular case they never allege according to him anything that would clearly indicate that contained in this one right which was contained in this one and existed at the time that you filed your loss well that's not that's not a sure bet unfortunately i think you have some language and i think one or two cases that say just that but when you take a or did not hear an expression declaration of the sites that but it also talked about the fact that any successive trustee can change that site so i was at any time and there's case law damages against mr stone personal damages which might affect the duty to indemnify but it can certainly adjudicate fully the status of the of the race itself of the trust banks realistic and that's the function of wise i reckon jurisdiction because all it does to the extent that it's a simple or personal jurisdiction is to adjudicate the interest of the  category but it's real but if the jurisdiction is limited to the matters arising from the transaction of that particular business or the commission of a tort it doesn't give you case having mr stone paled into this court has to decide how do we get merrill lynch i want this case completely and out of everybody's here some kind of an account ok there is everybody is in a computer ok you could file a stack you missin anything as fifty states quite easily but now what if the beneficiaries who are all in florida in mr stone who is in i know we've already given you jurisdiction over mr strong i'm suggesting walking we've got your sticks in over mr stone but on a purely form analysis maybe i'd be better off with this whole mess excuse the expression this whole litigation were transferred to floor because that's where the beneficiaries are who may be challenging this accounting that you're going to find which they can do here until of course taking very seriously that they have to hire expensive high priced lawyers here in illinois where down to four they might be able to do it less back a little bit hangs i mean some very tenuous factors what you have in illinois is historically a designated site illinois that no longer exists the stone with joint for which we have to strain to find that it doesn't impact stones the jurisdiction at the time of the jointer since historically it was at one time  time we filed this action but it was an action after you had no longer been that you were no longer the trustee we had a right to seek it of course you do of course you do but why couldn't you make the argument that as a former trustee you could've had as plaintiff demanding an accounting and a discharge from all of your obligations under the trust why couldn't you file last lawsuit in any state where because you're not saying you have ministers of trust in illinois you're saying this was the site is what you're about me it sounded like you were saying it was that that's what ministers here but that's not that's not the case and your brief makes  i would like to speak to something else i had property in illinois now the property here is he has been this racial crush and that clearly wasn't illinois at all all packed for purposes of determining that it doesn't have the same force as if it would have if it were in fixing the site which one we have the enabling provisions here which nobody has spoken about yet and these are all radical provisions the powers and the forty's granted to the trustee of the pitch trust  granted by illinois law those are his powers whatever powers and authority the state of illinois gives the trustee by the powers and authority of the trustee of the pits trust where ever the si for purposes for purposes of an actual settling the trustee account because that's all we're talking about here and some i would just say that the right of miral wish to exercise a non binding selection of form because it didn't have a choice as to where it could bring us this action it could only order was a form when you he added the old likewise of a action and then illinois plate and that's exactly the situation here under those circumstances i just don't see how a judge minister it is this is the conclusion but the interesting thing was it says and most recently the agency office of jacksonville florida so that would tell you according to merrill lynch that the trust was doing a ministered in florida while merrill lynch was the trustee and that means it would being administered in florida when mr stone except that the trusteeship so for going to get into the fact of wh her at the time mr stone accepted the trusteeship according to merrill lynch's own affidavit paragraph ten most recently it was administered in jacksonville florida  there very high and mighty on this illinois provision that they relied on that they had a contractual duty to file this case in illinois that's nonsense they never did a single thing in illinois that has a fact the only thing they see office in chicago we don't know what they did but most recently that would be at the end when stone except it was in florida now we talked your honor you mentioned historical facts and we cited one case was the who sell case and there the court considered what is the residency of a trust and it made the distinction between the of facts where was the trust when it started versus what's really going on in the real world where where is the activity of trust her problem is if you don't have a lock at any given time to show administration it seems to be nebulous diffuse dispersed and half the time that merrill lynch trial the one concrete fact was that illinois was that was designated was settled in the first instance so i think it would have been chancy where ever they would have chosen to file and could have been challenge choice of law doesn't affect minimum that she would look i agree with the court there are held in evidence or hearing and on the on the affidavits where we had all beneficiaries all trust assets the trust the activity of the trust every document the some consideration of what the state has to do with a florida based trust with the florida trust the with florida beneficiaries with the new jersey corporation whose prince with whom there is nothing in illinois and there is no activity by this defendant in illinois and no fact of activity by merrill lynch in illinois so regardless of what the agreement said it allowed for a change it changed factually and