rental work to lament trust that the trial court oppressed that the resolution of that question basically by determining whether or not the trust itself as racially in one regard does not specify to whom the power of direction was granted from time to time during the life of the trust is that necessary when pressed i believe this basically a life a state for son lyndall lendl's provision said that he was entitled to be encumbered a sickly from the trust but he had no authority whatsoever to deal with the trust assets so if a literal reading of that trust just applied little could not exercise the power direction after his mother passed away the provisions of the trust agreement which i believe judge brannon indicated shows that there was a power of direction from time to time or not correct for that reason the the provision that i believe you referred to said that the grand tours and slash or beneficiaries from would have the power of direction of power to direct the trustee or so during the time that window would wells their position was to in my view do an end run around that rule by coming up with the idea that this was planned and our position doesn't satisfy the requisites of a land trust because there is a defect or a lack of a person who has the power direction at least after the death of mr snuff and then in addition to that first provisions  her graphs twelve thirteen fourteen and fifteen all these are with the contemplation that the trustee would be handling income from the trust property which is not a usual the direction of the person who has the power of direction i want to exception i think so that is that some trust provisions or some land trust contain a limited time period usually twenty years and then there's a direction for additionally i'm not going any further on those points that we've we've raised in our brief but with respect to the the question of the the summary judgments that were entered in this case when the when the trial court heard the motion for judgment on pleadings it lasted for two to three hours morning and at the end of that judge granted indicated that the other motions would be taken up at a later date i think in the in the transcript on page eighty eight of the motion hearing conducted june third which was strictly limited to the motion for judgment on the pleadings the judge granted stated all right needless to say the court's going to take it under advisement and i think due to the fact it is now eleven fifteen and the fact that depending upon how the court's ruling could be dispositive of the remaining issues would it sound logical to everybody concerned that we simply continue the other matters until the court makes a ruling on this motion the motion for judgment on the pleas and he addressed each counsel present everybody agreed that that was the way it would proceed then of course judge grants ruling was entered later and that ruling he trust was a land trust and yes our fallback position is that we we effect of leave by that procedure were deprived of our right to argue our motion for summary j mean the motions for summary judgment and i think it's interesting to note that when you when you look at judge grants ruling i fail to see anything in his ruling which is based upon  issues that were raised in the motions for summary judgment he's limits his rulings or the bases for his rulings to the trust document itself and then he also mentions the deeds into trust now perhaps that's something that we should have stressed more in our brief we did mention it but the this makes reference to the language in the deed as containing powers that the trustee would have had but when you look at the deed the deed says that the trustee has the power to convey the property the mortgage the property the lease the property by the person who has the power correct so he i have difficulty with judge grants ruling because the same the deed supports the fact that it is a land trust o position is the trust should stand on its own and you can't consider the deed because the deed has provisions which are flat out contrary to the provisions up and typical milan from which say that the only authority the trustee has is to act upon the direction of the person with who has our direction and then we and again we go back to the position that at times as originally drafted there would not have that the defendants admitted all that and so that those documents were part of the pleadings and if you look at those documents our position was that they're not adequate or the original trust was not adequate to create a testified is deposition that after mr should have died he applied for a federal employer's id number tax payer number of frost you would not do that for a land trust because the land trustee doesn't have the money so i think those factual considerations indicated that there was no intention of the if the trust be a land trust from the get go that was a an afterthought i think to get around our contention article three an article t another point i would like to make is that mr leonard read they can see that if this is a plan for us it's really a member and given that i think you have simplify things so we don't even need to consider the two less stated what their position as but it was basing that upon an earlier case which dealt with and then provide false trust that had all the stocks as the as the rest of the trust or if the grants or settle or is the trustee the and particularly the way this trust was drafted i mean secrecy is is one of the benefits of voiding judgments attaching to the real estate would be another benefit and how is it secret if the name of the trust stars in the name of the trust and you know it makes no sense to me just i don't think there was ever any intention to set up a trust case and i stated