mark dial in two thousand sal and he left we sheltered or the other alice my client when walter died in two thousand and eight a single person know descends and she was the only child who survived dorothy and mom dorothy died in two thousand and thirteen the only his beneficiary melissa but that is not consideration firstly with respect to the plain meaning argue that doctrine which it which is a whole lot more present in the briefs than it was an argument here just simply doesn't of pop it can't overpower the fact wishes the plaintiffs are basically asking the court to the use certain portions of the agreement in a vacuum and to ignore reality the agreement is predicated on  dorothy walters children would survive it if they did each would take one third cheers of the second fifteen or so left i doubt of course the residual trust and section twent two parcel which was the dorothy walter trust so long as this happened they could be free rearrange their respective shares all day all they wanted and leave to their core purpose of of the agreement if you read it is just the and as we know she did it multiple times i'll discuss in a moment the final two amendments which she made after the death of her two boys so she had the power any talk to change the terms amended it we also have the death of the way in that bit that expectation was a condition proceeds and event that must take place prior to the contract becoming a fact and if that's not satisfied we all the city of edwardsville to the seller before the closing and now the conveyance of that land was identified by the court to be an unambiguous condition proceed and has it didn't happen everything else under the is to rearrange the shares of one volt with the section twenty two property and the section fifteen that's impossible if only june for example to conveyed all as interest in the eastern one third and middle one third of section fifteen to mark and the western one third to june as we know this is impossible he never took as  traditional current concepts of property expectancies are not lawsuit williams alice is in elizabeth arizona signed all sued for specific performance and the supreme court found that the contract was on in force of all by those without a vested interest leo was one of those people his interest lapsed when after his d he never once had a vested interest that he could pass off the formation of a contract according to the record intended to convey an expectancy does it by mate make quite a bit in their brief about where the condition proceed is located within the house they say well it's in our cycles ignoring it doesn't mean in whereas laws of the country and without them without legal descriptions what do you have so that language must have operative mean so too must be unambiguous condition proceeding found in that law there was consideration originally you can contract for expectancies the problem here is it that consideration subsequently fail that case argued that there was adequate consideration to support to enforce pacific in the performance of the contract in the releases of certain expect appeal that's also a inadequate consideration case here wayne and mark are left with no consideration which means they're left with nothing to trade wayne sure oath of the section and i'm happy to entertain any additional questions