involves of obviously the wrenching family it's a very mention trust very mention was of the mother of four children two of those children are the parties to this case thomas and richard there was also an individual the name of robert who was alive at the time the trust was made that the seized before very mention was deceased and there was another brother william william is this kind of not of issue in this case william was actually wri so it was of mainly to him and did not deny it that was made in in august of two thousand names that was one hundred twenty five thousand dollars long the court found that that even though the trust documents which it does if you look at the paragraph j of section five allows for a trustee to make a loan to him so specifically allows that i don't know if mr gowan agrees with that but the court found that in the in the memorandum decision and which was implemented or incorporated into the order so rather than looking there's cases and they've all been cited the cases in our opinion stand for the fact that just because  that it's our opinion that the trout horton made a judgment in error and it was against the manifest weight of the evidence the government show that actually after the almost made in the state tax return was filed in the loan was made in august interest of six thousand two hundred fifty dollars the court appeared to ignore both that evidence and the evidence that was listed in the schedule in it's our position i think is the position one makes any sense i mean what was this if it was  thousand and one say two thousand i think richard said he had talked to thomas sense of the year two thousand so this was for lack of better word the suction a family who didn't get along get personal issues between themselves i'm not saying that that excuses the requirement but and i agree with that it was not found there was sent but again i think it's important that there was never asked for not the bill that they have a burden to do that but obviously in october there was a meeting before i was involved in this case with mr boas testified questions and he was really unsure because he couldn't tell us he said he knew nothing about certain things that happened and one of them was one hundred twenty five thousand dollars what was this is in this complaint and i was asking how he knew the but that is that the complaint if you did know about  fact and he said something about there was the five thousand hours of was mistakenly given to william of one point time he said that was in there that showed him the tax return any and he couldn't get its way obviously got other information and he admitted he did receive some other information at that it was richer by this year i mean there's no doubt that the trust the trustee of the trust and the ability to invest money had the ability to loan money and i think that as of now it's by the courts so those testify that certain things he did sure did the judge find that that was not worth five hundred dollars a month no she didn't say that the trial court didn't say that but in a trial court did order it back from day one and the actual the only violation that richard by the sheer beauty would have occurred and plus throughout this over time the trust is making money is not an allegation that the trust lost any money there's no testimony and i know in the case that the judge sided and aside from the one loan of the money to him some of which again we don't believe is a violation of trust there was never any indication of any other improprieties and i guess my feeling was that and our feeling is that the five and he repaid the five hundred dollars a month and then because of the actors and i don't think that's appropriate that was something i suggested it's in the record someplace i wish i didn't put that in there i just thought it made sense that the five people but i don't believe that he committed the breach  of lawyers he had to file the do all the paperwork to file the state tax returns so sure there was there was a lot more time there and i think probably when she first went to a nursing home there's always a a lot of time when taking care of financial situations there are bills general trust work i mean he didn't write keep a log and say that i spent two hours monday october twelfth doing out of the bills for very nothing to do with what's the authorization in the trust agreement for him to get the on for the one hundred dollars for the five hundred dollars round and that's confusing too because it does in the one section it's just says that he's the truck corporate trust trustee is entitle t money and the media doesn't specifically delineate whether whether you can pay yourself in money but on my statute says that the trustee isn't either reasonable compensation so i don't think that was really an issue in this case the issue was whether not as to his recommendation the time should receive five hundred dollars i ask thomas the trial kept any time records over the years he did not and the list of duties that he performed he did not and as we know over a thirteen year period never provided so obviously we were faced with the tradition in any county action through discovery we had to get thirteen years of alleged records or whatever was available and try to piece together what happened over that brothers that i'm exercising enough to purchase mom shares valued one million one hundred fifty six thousand dollars for book value which was determined to be slightly less than one second one thousand dollars up he was entitled use of mother was closer to time than protecting the interest of the trust and that involves it's challenging the claim robert hydrogen relative state of robert reggie that's case  bear with me the reason of the state was it was not close to the title basis and that would have been the latest date september of two thousand and nine state actually in turn was filed was to fall thomas funding thirty three cents of every dollar of attorney species that have been expended with respect to distrust so my client should have had a distribution of all available funds no later than september two thousand and nine and here we he still received the distribution he's pushing seventy years of age he was the oldest of the boys and he's received nothing he never approved the challenge that tom instituted and as i also say in my pre mother would receive forty percent and each of richard haas and one would receive twenty after all those years we finally had to get a trial for him to understand the probate act and who would get what the trust should not  exists at that point the argument you'll hear is that mothers will which is a typical horrible well i know you've seen over the years she sets up a very sick list of artists persons williams trust that time but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the trust they are two totally different animals and you don't have the same partners william is would be mrs rogers their leader is not a bit official in the trust so you don't even have the same part years and i just didn't want to go any further because all we were given was copies of cancelled checks that's it we asked for all the counties all records who we got copies of checked so we ran now do i think there was damage because there were no counties yes i knew what were the damages my client didn't receive his money at the latest as of september two thousand and he still hasn't received and i dare say any money spent it after that they should be accounted for whether they be returned slease contributions to churches whatever every time should be paid back including all the prior expenses fees and the a the problem was what i asked richard yes and this began just makes a point this money should have been this of distributed after the estate tax return was approved the problem with that is how much was he going to get at that time  after which which richard would get and this is why time was between a rock and a hard place is because if he paid no matter what he did he's going to be here and him in court because if you paid in the hundred instead of one hundred fifty way it's going to go and that's why the court found what the the trapper did is that yes we're entitled defendant of the interest of the trust in that case and that's why it was appropriate to take the money out thank you gets mr gallantly set up a meeting and that's the october meeting in mr gallegos is a little wrong about that whether he mentions that they didn't get any accounting because if you look at the record in fact it's under mr gallant's question and i went into a lot more detail but he that but the court found there is no damage and there is no damage he wants to argue that whether that the damage is whether he got his money now or them and i and they're really there was no evidence presented concerning any loss of the property there to how much to pay to have it's very simple if you distribute the trust you pay one third to somebody i don't care there's two there's a probate estate escrow give my client his third time can have his third that point and do