was on this time all but no matter so this is this is the panel now i know but when i looked up on the web site last week it said that it doesn't matter to i mean there are there are two panels today so he might be this motion to dismiss which we think was unfounded for the reason set for three this is filed called void rulings two very important legal issues one involves the duties of a trustee and the other involves the dut assume the following facts you are a lawyer representing an elderly client who with his power is failing has turned over to you all of its assets to trust you happen to believe that the client is a rather man says too generous to his wife over the years so you decide to work steadily for your client's instructions on how you should treat his wife i just want to focus on one of those which is a central issue taste house after he died and that was the promises important for what she did not know because the defendants here did not disclose to her that day the trustees had made a promise to him that if he became mentally  the st case based in part on a provision of the living trust and isn't your argument in the case before us now also based on simply another provision of the living trust yes but the assertion of the living trust involved in the other case was one we knew about because they admitted that this was one we didn't know about it because they denied  recall that we may not only listen to it when it was the but vision of the living trust that required the payment of the annuity payment after death well that's right because that was disclosed to us and we knew about it my client made a decision not to enforce than enough for the agreement because that was not her priority but she did not know that these defendants had taken upon themselves a separate obligation  disclose her and the law is you have to bring claims that you have you are aware of and that have not been hidden from you that that's fundamental here can argue really curious clarify exactly we're talking about so you were aware of the living trust and you st that's not exactly right that it is the claims were based upon e mail correspondence with them which can go years for the other side and which they had disclosed the the that other obligation and it was their disclosure that we relied on they did not disclose this obligation that case was not based upon studying because you knew that there was just saying that there was the underlying document of a living trust what prevented you in the st suit from obtaining a copy of the building trust it wasn't what wasn't relevant what has been hired to do was to keep her in the house i looked at these agreements and it was nothing in the agreement about keeping her in the house and that was the only issue between us this this proving whether somebody had their day in court you know barber is also a trustee and so maybe there's an argument to just you disagree with this argument but there seems to be an argument that because she's also a trustee she's been pretty with rudin buck and maybe he was represented but i'm kind of interested in your reaction to whether the duties as a lawyer are different so barbour is not a lawyer so might there be a stronger argument that there's new privity when you're trying to proceed against party to the settlement they said that in writing only now they're changing their mind after the fact so yes they have separate obligations and rosenbach as greater obligations but she has an obligation as a trustee she did not disclose to us and which she new payments than she claimed she was due on death the reason they weren't being paid in reason the action was brought was because the trustees claimed that they didn't have  lawyer and doesn't have duties as a lawyer so isn't it sort of odd to say that route involve aqua's in privity with barbour to be you know that he was it was tantamount to him having is day in court when those claims just could not possibly have  st action and the nd action was the st action one that the said there was do no you know i grant that yes i understand that it arises out of the same facts and it's the see you know series of that actually brings up an interesting issue which i picked up yesterday when i was looking at the cases again this privity issue it's the privity of the person against whom the collateral stoppel is inserted that's action and i'm sorry it was so you're saying that we don't even need to find that barber was in privity with roden box just the fact that there was a lawsuit where littman was the plaintiffs means she can't bring saying in that the plaintiff has every motivation and every responsibility in the st action to bring all the claims that you had against barber had the obligation not just to bring all the claims that she had against barbara also all the claims that she had against britain back in the st action and if she's alleging that rodent act had a duty to disclose that really  and once she had to bring the suit against wrote about she had to bring all the possible suits against wrote about as well is that you're playing with your i'm not saying she had to bring a claim against against barber arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions and roadblock had a sufficient connection to add to the st su that his interests were represented therefore she had to bring all of the claims she had in the st action whether they were right so your your position would have would have announced a rule that as long as there is for some purposes that is that they that they are both co trustee is registered a card with both or any claim that she could have brought in the st action for i don't think there's need to go i don't think you need to go quite that far i think you need to say there's a need to bring any other claims against the other party that were related to  me and i should have been because i meant to simply go back to the standard permits you to colorado and say that number one she had to bring all the planes that arise out of the same facts and she had to bring all the claims that she had to  claims that arise out of the spectacle right but i mean you can imagine groden but actually in a different capacity like let's say he did actually need repairs on the southampton house or something and so in addition to that not the same operate effectively even though it's all about you know the maintenance of the house or they're there they're taking care of that have to be patiently unrelated because it's a different kind of thing he's doing because he's acting as a contractor repairman or something and so i guess what you're saying that acting as an attorney would not be different because the attorney is doing similar things to a trustee is that the difference it's because if a trustee is denying her benefits as a trustee that would still bar claims for a lawyer denying her benefits as a lawyer because even though they're acting in different capacities they're creating the same injury to her mr pushed her became disabled some ten years before the st action was commenced and so what she wants is the object of the action is to get the disability benefits you know i get the point she wants  that action and of course the issues that are that could have been raised or not we have discussed the privity issue i think it's clear that both refer to provisions of the living trust in the st action we were yet part of article article two section c four of the trust provides a new i think i've explained article two the same transaction or series of transactions if you had it st if you had further claims under the living trust the argument goes you should have brought them in the st action  not what was that issue in the case so it was an issue in the st case was the crap and the death penalty but there's no look i think i think we have i think we i think we i think we have that argument mr curly thank you very much i will to the case is submitted we're going to