senate to the court what he did during a period of twenty eight years and further even thanks a number of times even in the first argument in this case he mentioned that the defendant was an unsophisticated person well i'm not exactly sure what the true definition of know that if you have just care she can't trace everything in out of business if you don't have records to support what she said then what i say is the only basis you have and he was i think sophisticated enough to hire a very capable con counsel to represent him this case i don't think that mr carter was credible makes the claim about this money that he took from his father when you look at that that was listed in his mother's state and the return for the federal government says it is in this is on collectible which means he's never going to have to pay that back and say that i invested all this money that i never repay and never going to don't like to argue things after the fact i never had any opportunity to address to the court about minority interest their expert didn't bring it up our expert didn't bring it up if that was going to be an issue i would like to have the opportunity to argue that with the court difficult for anyone to attack or bring in other evidence to say that they're wrong if i don't know what the basis is i don't have any supporting documents for m review came as a result of the trial court finding that two documents actually three documents which claimed he had an assignment signed by john robert carter and jennifer byrne all  terminated their interest or their remainder interest in the spendthrift trust this court dealing with that issue said no trial court you're in error because we do not find that fact that those quick claims and assignments are not effective to transfer the remainder interest of these two plaintiffs look at the enhanced value of the improvements placed there by the defendant carter determine the value of the trust assets and then look at the net income generated during the pendency of the trust three different issue council has not addressed the issue of or basically has addressed the enhanced value of the improvements it's clear that it carter moved onto the property first into a mobile home and then built a that lew carter paid on on behalf of his son the low were issued to carter and they had the address of the property so ed carter performed all the labor arranged for the purchase of all the materials and he secured a loan through his father and his father even filed in his as divorce proceeding a compilation of all the billions that he had paid on behalf of his son was not ruled on whether or not that was a valid loan or a gift on the carter's death his form seven zero six united states estate tax return says not that it's on collectible but the collectability is unknown there are two different arguments and until mildred carter died just recently within the last six months there's been no determination and there's no determination now as to the enforceability of that loan which was shown on the seven zero six is it carter share going to be reduced out of his father's trust proceeds are his siblings go jep to be determined through the court process but it's clear that it could are performed all the late the early in that house and his family lived in the mobile home and then live from about nine ninety one i believe through two thousand and one in that family residence and they're seeking return for the entire period including the period where one of the plaintiffs lived with his mother in that h all the way through the divorce so the enhanced value we would say is the complete value of that residence very taft put it two hundred five thousand place a value on the enhanced or the the improvements on the rest of the property outside of the residence at sixty thousand dollars all the testimony shows that all of those improvements on the rest of the property other than the residence were caused by ed carter he built some more he removed a sawmill and placed it on the property he built the boarding state he built the pole shed that was on the property that sixty thousand dollars was handsome and caused by cart and should be considered by the court i argued and presented to the trial court roughly fifteen thousand fourteen to fifteen thousand dollars of value on the underlying realistic so if you take that off and you say there are sixty thousand dollars of enhanced months out in the rest of the property back ed carter built that house and he's got enhanced mintz and my argument is an equitable method is that he should get the house and at least four point four acres to go with that  remains that you have forty five thousand dollars of enhanced value for the rest of the property you've got barry taft who says all of this property outside the residence is worth three hundred thousand dollars and sixty going to determine the value of fifty percent interest in this whole shooting match how am i going to make that determination presented no evidence no documentation  in my trial brief to the judge which there was an opportunity for a reply brief in response outlined that other cases in illinois that i've cited to the court and they be case which was a mortgage foreclosure and approval of the sale of a one half interest that was a two hundred eighty thousand dollars market value that sold for an undivided one half interest for twenty thousand dollars there were no experts before the court or referred to in the court opinion and the statement is that it's approved and there was specific reference to the discounts taken in tax court cases and others other words fractional interest and lack of marketability i don't think that the experts themselves had had to render a decision saying that there was  so i think it was a very think you need expert testimony to come up with something from this look at look at the various cases if you examined fractional interest in lack of marketability cases you'll see that the door sometimes is open because of reliance on expert witnesses but the courts vary dramatically from what each of the experts and normally it's a tax court case each of those experts renders some of them i arrest doesn't even have one they're responding and don't even provide an expert but the court has the ability to vary dramatically from what those experts come in and the testimony before the trial  before judge zappa clearly outline all the issues of marketability you have you had four children who were beneficiaries now two of them say that were were bound by the  quitclaim were going on it and they have not become parties to this complaint but you have two opposing factions that are ever going to get along that was pretty clear the acrimony in the court room was clear to judge that but then you have an unbelievable tract of ground that surrounded by railroad tracks an interstate or a major highway a river and a commercial operation and then the appraisers themselves said well we assume that there was easement across but brothers commercial property there's no verification there's a claim by the brother that that was a personal those appraisers qualifications and and their documents themselves were impeached by their testimony saying well we assumed it was a public access across their well there is a public access down along the river which floods forty percent of the year and it makes it inaccessible through that he's meant right so those are those are major issues that the court was aware of and used to on those you're not going to be able to use those to sell this property people are not going to be interested in running the same types of operation those buildings are to be torn down both of them said that the highest and best number one i think the residence itself ought to be covered by the enhanced value and the improvements the other improved getting into a couple of other issues i've outline what the court pretty said it was presented with through all the testimony from two thousand and six all the way through two thousand and twelve the defendant went through and mark as the type of operation that was involved on the property clearly there were three operations that were only on the trust property you had the boarding stable the the rentals the mobile rentals and the and the feed and grain then you have behaved background in the hay rack ride is to me it was sort of a red herring and all th all centered and we spent half the time in the trial court discussing a rock right on a forty seven acre tract that was not part of the trust property at least three quarters or or more of the operation was up on that forty seven acre tract and at most twenty percent went through the trust property some years it didn't go through there at all they went out and they hired a private investigator to rough out how many tickets at ten dollars a ticket they estimated thirty two hundred went through in one year it's a it's a how are we in here rock drive and it's only three weeks or three weekends a year so it's a limited number that you're going to have well thirty two hundred attendees at ten dollars a pop you would figure and he was not there the entire time that's thirty two thousand dollars well the deposit statements or tickets cash laundromats the mere fact that he deals in cash does not mean that he is intending to defraud anyone i don't think that can be s and there's no testimony other than one of the plaintiffs saying that this is a scheme to defraud family government and others he's never been charged he's never been subject to any review by any state or federal agency in regard to his operations so we we went through from two thousand and six all the way to twenty twelve as label each of the operations that occurred on the trust property and then we had another category of other get a candle operation that he dealt with on the forty seven acre tract and he sold catley sold over forty two thousand dollars worth of cattle opposing counsel would want that all in and say that's part of the trust too because you can't prove that one way or the other well they alleged and the plaintiff got up and said well they run the cattle on the they have it during the winter months for shelter well that neglects the fact that the defendant built a shed across the road and on the forty seven acre tract the provide shelter and and housing for his cattle during bad weather so that operation and that argument really doesn't hold water and in my mind  so they buy day the items are receipt dispersement are carried through on the secretary's rate registry and that was from two thousand and six to twenty twelve the account got on the stand and said ok in light of the lack of documentation the only way that i can figure out reasonably to present this to the court is what the defendant did go through the secretary register and go through the deposit pickets label each and every one up and when he examined the listing that we had prepared and submitted a sort of polling these are the summary he said ok i looked at twenty eleven in particular i spent a great deal of time in review that it appears correct then i did a cursory review of two thousand and six or i think it was two thousand and eight i can't remember i think he started representing and doing the one of the questions came ok well what transpired with the account was every year the accountant would take the books and records the secretaries register the deposit take that the bank statements and the bank statements anymore have copies of the check so he could cross check what's going on and every year i would set up a general register later tried to double check or match up between the income tax returns in the general register and after examination at his office the accountant came back and said i can tell you judge that this is i identical figures but those match up perfectly there's nothing wrong there's nothing missing those do match up i've got very little time left if the court has questions for me  it's just getting back i think there was sufficient data but the kitchen sink was basically put into the record all the boarding leases the mobile home leases all of that was before the court all of the income tax returns from eighty six all the way through opposing counsel would impose income in a three year period where carter was basically unable to work on the trust property and served as a didn't come that's going to be part of the trucks as far as the old boss or the use of the s and p five hundred once again we get back i see no cases cited in support of that there was obviously no expert testimony on that whatsoever so we we feel that the trial court order should stand  was asked a question he he says that saner matched up the secretary and they came and in his