casuals that i know a casualty is not required to apply to the department surance for a solid payment subject to the other conditions in terms of the no richard mccarthy was the original holder of the four surplus hold that was their argument not in anything to do with the with the january twenty ninth no jr twenty twenty ninth two thousand and four letter and mortgagee which we are in two thousand and four letter is not a contract it was not signed by mr mccarthy the people hat how negotiations changed what consideration was given for other things things do change the wasn't there is a lot of rot there and then my understanding is the reason why our law concludes you can't model it for all that is because the him and then he says please change the ownership designation it doesn't really to me like necessarily he's asking to actually get the ownership changed that he's transferring his interest from himself as an individual to himself as the trustee of a revocable trust where he is the true history in the way the transfer was made to he was the trustee of the transfer was made to the tru vehicle that he could change up until the time of his death all right the interest of the service and we play that is and it's in the record does not require a separate number of taxpayer identification number as long as the trustee is the grant for that process so it's one in the same person from the standpoint of taxes forty or because and also the engine room service does not require a separate separate return to the file by the taxpayer who is the grand tour of across the entire going through a briefly according to a pair of seventy one paragraphs then to make its legal analysis of the various topics before it for consideration ruling that there were basically in addition to the promissory notes which are contrast between the part forty three key documents first is the exhibit number eight that is the nov first two thousand and five request for change in form of ownership the second is the court relied on the january twenty nine  doctrine of january twenty ninth and four as opposed to what the trial judge did obviously the court was smarter than we both were because the court ruled them that the the clock out affidavit which was filed in an attempt to amend the meaning of the january twenty ninth all four letter was inadmissible from the standpoint that number one it was self serving it was an attempt after the death of brigid mccarthy to change what was the parties agreeing that in the inducement made january twenty ninth of two thousand and four so that big mccarthy would proceed with the deal if if you can remember from the record the matter was actually set for closing on december thirty first of two thousand and three the stream of cars people often didn't accept until february first two thousand  that letter had to do with that because he was concerned about what would happen in the event that he follow normal estate planning provisions after the fact of the close in the south third the the court ruled that the civet of january twenty ninth two thousand to stop from asserting any meaning other than that set forth in the january twenty ninth all four letter paragraph one zero nine as a matter of law i c c is a stop from denying the trust the same rights as the original holder of the no and then finally in one ten therefore the trust has the same rights as mccarthy's estate would have had under paragraph fourteen of the notes in other words the trust has a right to seek early retention of on mccarthy's death business judgment rule counsel wants us to believe that under the had a similar situation would be that the warnings that they have in their new building rock island when times turn tough in two thousand and eight that they go to the bank and say we just don't want to make our payments right now that would be the same thing to doing here because the mccarthy trust is a creditor of i  never produced as far as evidence for the trial court or was it included on july all of this last year when the arguments were made judge the anybody it appeared for the first time in the brief filed before this court finally the i c c is board over nov first request for change of ownership had been approved by the ratification of the board of directors i am not at a loss to understand where they say that the company has never approved that transaction last but not least was the only important insurance we sent a freedom off so that we could get the documents actually that were presented to the department of insurance to authorize the approval of the change of ownership from mccarthy to mccarthy's trust that he didn't back to this and i think it's worth in paragraph number one twenty of the court's decision also but it came back to this clearly along with some supplemental information that it no regulatory approval was required is what it was handwritten of the top of the page and it appears as an attachment to the second two which was the chain with twenty nine all four letter and is approved by the board of directors on november first of all five exhibit number three as approved by the department of insurance and jane reported in january fifth of zero six which was document at the top of that letter and last but not least the promissory notes beach period with on every corner for a minimum surplus capitalization we need to remember this is a mutual insurance company they have to be capitalized in such as say such a patient in order for for a capital notice or surplus nose to be redeemed all right as of march thirty first two thousand and ten that was twenty three million the notice call for eighteen and a half million is the threshold a minimum threshold after the million six is paid on march thirty first of two thousand and ten it was twenty four million sixty six thousand seven hundred seventy seven dollars so as such based upon what we can tend to the quarter the trucker was correct in granting summary judgment for us in looking at all of these factors saying there is no question of fact and this is how we rule with respect the request that they be required under one aspect to submit the letter they then submitted the letter and there are some other extraneous matter that's not before the court in my opinion this time that's  seated before the board is authorized to make a request but the notes also provided paragraph six that if the threshold surplus of the company is higher than after the company has the ability to make the decision whether or not