law oh there's two issues in that in terms of who was really the prevailing party and why enhanced attorney's fees of seven times the normal journeys used to be awarded should be sustained where there's actually punishment without due process basically home we went on the on the purpose so you may not have to reach that matter there's also an issue as to the defamation claim in terms of a statute for privilege was a serious problem public policy implications not only for the state authorities and the federal alaska law is absolutely crystal clear merely because you get to judge and it doesn't mean you're the prevailing party if you get a little bit of what you see they took the position that mr harper had to pay one point seven million dollars because formal trust and nothing so we then just got distributed approx one hundred forty one thousand dollars for going into his personal account in order since the checked wouldn't clear for a week he took one hundred twenty thousand dollars of his own money and put it into whole produce and discover our expert mr buco was cracked and where the money and that was basically the model for the judges distribution and you know so they really did have an account point seven million dollars and there were some of the actually some initial distributions that have been done in terms of the sales of the property and so i mean until they lost finally on the merits they still want to one point seven million  on the wrong ferry and they wanted two hundred twenty thousand on defamation of there was actually a sixty thousand dollars distribution i think i'm glad but the real issue is with this is or someone like the unabomber who are fairly ordinary people that are actually doing bad things are going to be comics and there's actually a serious privilege issue on this defamation claim but what the courts really says was on the one hand it's right in his opinion he says i think they're asking for double recovery they want basically tens of thousands of dollars now because of the defamation actions i won't do that he turns around and says it's vexatious litigation but the but the but the but the but the bottom line is what w he he wasn't a formal trust me they said he was he didn't have to do three duties they said he did he didn't have any duties not to commingle they said he did they wanted one point seven million they were wrong all the background was a turned over that you can report was turned over they were told what the judge finally found were the facts what better accounting can you give and i i need to know who for this for a moment actually the court before he talks about why this is happening he thoughts about everybody losing after everybody spending four hundred seventy four thousand that kind of a litigation which leaves clients dissatisfied these a lot of siblings and the property  good when the sister transferred the part i was going to transfer the funds because there was a check transaction or a financial transaction so i called and before he actually received the funds are set up just for the discord that nobody could reconcile because if you're going to transfer if you're going to if you're going to trace on a county basis dollar for dollar then your theory was you had to wait until the sisters money honor has no duties or responsibilities as to the management control or distribution of the property except perhaps to can very little of the thrust of this direction the sole duty of a trustee to result in trust is to convey the property the beneficiary it's on one point seven million of them even after the trial and we won on that so who's the prevailing party it all comes to the only excuse that the court found to basically panis mr harper was that honor to recognize that it's not simply look at the factual issues as to who was the prevailing party but it's the purpose of the rule and you can't use a realty to rule to accomplish a purpose to stand out of the rule if you don't harper was an attorney or county or some extra duties we must focus on the reality just a two way street this was a trust and informal trust imposed after the fact this type of conduct occurs hundreds of times