principal of the beneficiary share to the beneficiary as the trust is appropriate to provide for his helpmate with education and support the trust further provides and this is the key way that we're here to argue about t he trust further provides that the trustees may take any reasonable step disperse funds to more or the beneficiary including was once a list but number four of that list is a direct application for the benefit and i suppose that goes to the point that i would make here which is rather than asking mr court provide documentation of the bills so that the bank if it so chose and its discretion could pay those creditors directly he did apply it for the benefit of michael i do find it hard to believe that my client's debts were exactly one hundred fifty thousand dollars and that he somehow broke all one hundred fifty thousand dollars money to his father with reason so if the clothes were it's reasonable if it's used maybe to pay off the the debts well you just pass it i think there's a there's a liability question and it damages questions could there which money to help care bills and those bills didn't have any interest and you didn't apply some of the hundred fifty thousand dollars to see credit card debt which had a very high interest the bank again has somebody paid my criminal fees to my attorney from a criminal to me could he have included facts in the affidavit that would have more sharks you know or closely focused the poor might be a proper purpose or are you just saying well since we don't know is it accurate for ted to say i don't know or does he have knowledge that ought to be brought to bear and has should have been included me after to answer your honor's question i believe he still has that and so i guess the general question is well he's not sure in receive a payment again i think that's something we'll figure out in discovering as to you know sometimes medical providers after a period of time will write off the debt so maybe he doesn't what about the release right here i'm well with regard to section fifteen of the trust to take the saying well that releases us section fifteen of the trust pacifically says quote a part of the livery of the trust property to its successors together with the statement of its activities for any period which has not been reported trust the show be without further liability or responsibility to any past present or future beneficiaries the bank is asking the court to read that quite literally in fact if you read that provision the way the bank would have read it the bank could deliver the trust property into the successor along with the statement of activities showing that it lightly misused the money and then it's off the hook f taken by the successor trustee once you deliver the trust property and your statement of negativity it's not saying that hot potato here you go here here's the trust property here's a statement of activities even though the case from twenty one quote no form of words in the matter how all encompassing or for close scrutiny ever release or prevent the reviewing court from inquiring into surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether accurately reflected  says in his affidavit i didn't have a full accounting i hadn't received a full accounting of the trustees activities therefore any release would not be effective as to every action that the bank had done now in this case this is a letter rection the real purpose of this is because my client has directed the bank to transfer to transfer the funds to a success so he thinks i'm signing this to transfer to a successor trustee and again this is where discovery would be helpful but he believes that witness testimony would be further in discovery i'm releasing them from their a and transferring the money to the successor trustee that's it that's a slightly different then i forgive them for anything they've ever done which i may or may not know about in this particular case he was not releasing them for the actions that he didn't know about what type of discovery unishe there was no discovery or hundred in this case a complaint was filed a motion to dismiss court without complaint against the bank seeking punitive damages on some theory of it might if happened on information believe these are his bills he could pick up the phone and ask his lawyer was my bill paid you can ask his doctor was my for a minimal amount i don't understand at all how one can claim that there's been the screech of producer duty when he doesn't even claim or allege any damage as he claims nothing with respect to these monies being taken by his father he the trustee here had the ability any reasonable means to make bills therefore were directly to or even indirectly for the benefit the beneficiary that was done in this case you have a situation here where they're claiming somehow that there was a misappropriation that any facts about this is something they should have come and looked at prior to filing the complaint if in fact they had any honest belief that my client had done anything wrong with respect to this they could have easily investigated this is a hard thing to do this is a five minute deal talk make some phone calls find out who's paid you know they want to say is that this concept that the trust somehow should be interpreted not to release the bank this is now mr pat clark's price this is emily different better price maybe only knew her grandson maybe she did not want her grandson to come after the trust people people she put believe the bank had a greater duty to actually walk and see that these things were paid or something like that but that's not the allegations that's that here berman's from everything i think before you there's nothing pl karr failed to do in these things that's an incredibly missing element here you're alleging this is all speculation but we might find something maybe there was interest hey that could have been paid so speculation they have proved to be a real one thirty seven i take it seriously who investigate in a case where the investigation is quite simple man has control of his bills he can make contact his doctor his lawyer his credit card company he didn't do it that's on him thing i'll just try to address one quick point council or use that and use the word indirect but the bank can make incorrect claim under the trust trust says it may take any reasonable steps including for direct application for the benefit of the jury so what counsel is arguing what the bank is arguing is what is reasonable is the direct opposite of what the trust is including using the word clearly meaning those four scenarios are exhausted it doesn't your honor but it's a good indication of what is reasonable and if direct that which case it is reasonable it's a pretty good indication that indirect that location is a reasonable and i think that again