exact orders that are listed in the notice of appeal and those are the orders that trigger our jersey fiction and this decision i mean the motion itself was five on the day that you filed a notice of appeal but the decision doesn't come until not going probate here is it not is all right so as far as your first orders it the the september fifteenth order denying the most to reconsider and you filed october thirteenth that's within thirty days evidence but that this is not truly a post john schmidt did this in attacking the ruling by directly by judge mel like it's it's basically asking for a reopening right and and  appeal and you may have to wait until subsequent appeal when the probate estate itself is closed to challenge that reopening of the proofs or happily said may raised issues as to whether a citation or  where there's already been a motion to reconsider it was denied filed here timely notice of appeal that were it somehow we would have jurisdiction now to concern ourselves with an order decided six months later by the trial court in and i'm going stake probate the matter when there's been no subsequent notice of appeal filed that's the only order that i concern myself with after the first two and we understand your position but there are more sensitive side issues that we need to do is the certainly rule right so even though the judge malik talked about presumption if we were to sets it to the word inference for his use of the word presumption  what would prevent us from doing that i mean we're really talking about the inference that arises from the evidence that was presented because you're absolutely correct the presumption itself is not evidence and the battle bursts after you present one major point and that was something like that judge malik relied on he said the only an interested party that testified here was mr knight and sid may have tried to prove too much by claiming he was never present during any of the conversations that occurred between victoria and this and mr knight then mr knight testified to the contrary and once there is a conflict in evidence we don't try to resolve that conflict we look to the trial judge just resolution of that conflict and we deferred to that conflict only as it's against the manifest weight of the evidence and but the point would be if we get to that point where we're seeing testimony of mr knight and cross if we go based on judge malik's ruling alone is there simply a conflict or do we have a resolution of that conflict based on judge malik's ruling that undue influence remain if  forms already filled out giving title to both victoria and sid jr which would be absolutely impossible unless mr knight had a private prior conversation w all why would he bring the forms in all unless he anticipated needing those forms to retitle proceedings to begin with because there's no question that she was changing her here to get that information from because he didn't speak with have is is what the attorney bowman observes in these these individuals testify sufficiently to overcome the presumption once the presumptions overcome it's their burden to prove undue influence well and in the f not exercise undue influence over his client and then what happened and then he was reminded to the trial court to evaluate the evidence that was presented to determine whether or not unduly influence what remained and that's exactly what correct and i think that where there is appears to be some confusion on counsel's part is relating to the credibility of the witness it is not the burden of the respondent to put forth any witness any evidence it has to be evidence that will satisfy the judge that it can overcome the rebuttal presumption here the judge went through very thoughtful analysis as to why not say it was not credible he went through very thoughtful analysis as to why that presumption  influence that supported by evidence he has presented clear and convincing evidence to the contrary presumption gives us some difficulty i can understand that i think that it's perhaps in a bench trial such as this not quite as consequential as perhaps it may be any jury trial where there needs to be an instruction to the jury as to how to treat that in those cases and in fact let me versus in france may be a very in the back when we ask you that very question let's say this w jury trial and wouldn't the judge have instructed and what if the judge would have ruled as a matter of law whether the presumption remained at the conclusion of the up and if he found it or dead first that in fact  had been sufficiently overcome to eliminate the presumption and therefore allow the jury to decide the issue on the evidence only and allowing them to report to infer whatever inferences they pick whatever inferences they wanted to take from the evidence or approach is to adapt that argument which is oh well there's no more i'm due in full that's so we can go ahead and go into a donate attack and that explains your client's decision because it didn't make any difference at that point whether the presumption existed or didn't exist you want to be evidence to be presented to support i think inference monger of i think again this goes back to the issue of it being a bench trial because there was not a segmented process by which the judge rendered his decision all the evidence was allowed in for him to then go either to the credibility of the witnesses or then to convert a presumption into an inference if that was his inclination to do so and to clarify something that was addressed in the parlance argument it was raised by suits attorneys when we put on the evidence by in market it was raised by this is attorneys say wait i just want to raise it i own up this is a problem or not but it could be an ambition that just it raise it the judge said that's an interesting point i'm not sure that was it that's the entire basis of it in the record and as the court has noted there is no support in the case law for that proposition with respect to the remaining issues we are happy to why was the pre that they do you there's still so much evidence that needs to be considered by the court as you can see in the last three points there is no just where he doesn't apply here are you saying that are you saying that we don't have all the information that you want to present to us regarding whether undue influence was ever exerted by sid jr and therefore we should not resolve this case and just send it back is that your position though that's not our position in terms of whether or not you have all of the information regarding and you know you're asking us not to make a decision based on the record or do you think more information could come out i think that there is overcome by clear and convincing evidence this indicates that that's what he was doing he made a determination that we did not overcome the presumption we maintain we did we said we we submitted significant evidence if taken as true overcome or one where you did not present a clear and convincing evidence that no one to influence occurred here could we interpret it in the latter form and not necessarily in the form he said that the