purpose of a forcible entry action is to decide who has a right to possess certain property and in this case my client is a trustee of the dollhouse family trust and the defendant is a lame dollhouse the widow martin dollhouse who was the south tower of the truss the property in question is a tract comprising about thirty six point seven acres in my own illinois the evidence is that in two became the owner of the property and around that time the defendant moved into the my own property she had been living in the marital residence in the orient but decided to move to my own the trustees subsequently asked her to sign a  lease to pay the expenses of the property and other leasehold agreements and there were some negotiations they did not result in a lease they did not come to terms and so on that evidence the trial judge allowed extraneous evidence to come in and look at the dollhouse family trials and in construed or the trustee to deal with as the trustee sees them didn't work they never lived in this house not according to the evidence that was presented there was evidence presented were written together but they had different provisions and that's why i think judge kaplan was trying to do was trying to somehow read some of the terms of the marvell house trust into the dollars family house crossed itself as it is not a big deal it says that the trustee made major releases or taking any other action with respect to real or tangible property that an individual or her could take so there's will and there's nothing in the house family tries giving away any right to live in the property or to control the use of their property she has a right to the income from the trust but not to the use of the proper she may have but i'm not sure she would have the right if you have to trust that net income for the years you were here the right to live in if there was never income than she would receive i don't know if there has been and  had to pay the net income to the or to pay the income to the wife's income their fishery but he also ends obligations to manage the property for the benefit of the remainder beneficiaries who twenty four thousand dollars testified that nine thousand was for taxes six thousand was for his fees five thousand was for depreciation and the trust instrument doesn't allow  i am concerned that mr churchill is trustee may be protecting the residual beneficiaries but also he has kind of a benefit himself by keeping the trust directions was that the court got into these negotiations by the parties we think what's relevant here is that the parties didn't come to an agreement now what their respective positions were with regard to the said negotiations so well whether he was asking for two miles or whatever i don't really see how that bears on whether he has a right possessed of the property if he has defendant brings in some of these other things that mr churchill didn't object to them moving into the property when he was in the trustee and even after he didn't immediately tell him who by of the house he tried to make arrangements so that she could live there if she would pay an appropriate signing appropriate lease for the property we basically object to the fact that the court conflated the terms of the marne dollhouse cross with the terms of the dollhouse family trust there are two separate tries they deal with different property and their terms are different one other thing i'd like detriment to elaine by being able to live in the crockery now is going on a year over year and a half going on two years or no more than two years since she moved in in conclusion the pla tour was in one of the parties that any prior understandings or agreement to determine whether an action should be charged in this case also i will comment was made by counsel in the brief as well as during the argument that he felt that there were things that were admitted into evidence particularly i made the offer that elaine bell house made to pay all the expenses the wrath and nappy record there should have been allow that particular question was asked and answered  before any objection was raised by ms so mr church will answer that question before any objection was raised of that as should be weighed one of the key issues in this case is what was the intent of the gran marvin bell and we have several things the look at there oh this is all circumstantial evidence because the family trusts itself doesn't say whether an should be charged the first thing is on the very day that he signed the family trust signed another trust that other trust actually had the house that they were living in it at the time of it was signing back in may of two thousand and three and then trustee said that i don't want my spouse ever to have to pay rent on a mirror it's very clear that they had moved into the new property in the family trust but what was said in the records she said that all the furniture best tv's washer and dryer everything they need to deliver had been moved into the family trust to a lot of work to do all the stuff over there so they were just looking at the evidence in the record one would have to conclude that they were she said we couldn't live in the orient property anymore they lived in the mylan property before dea what's the evidence that mr bell house lived in that property all of his things were moved into it also i'm not sure this isn't in the record but i'm not sure that he ever slept a night in that house it's not in the records say that he may have been too ill to sleep anywhere there clearly he did not reside in or at the the orient property they had moved all of his furniture and all of her furniture to the new residence where you're relying on the trial court using the the provision from the family trust is the standard for the other trust in part i think that's true i mean that's a clear indication of his intent and some situations i think that could be little different there from the you look at draws but because she is the income beneficiary at any rate that she paid would come back to her anyway under the terms of the family trust if we could construe what his intent was especially in light of actually saying something saying pay no rent from our house i think the intent is pretty fluid and just simple logic indicates that as well the other thing that indicates that  the intent was not to charge rent it is normally if you have a tenant you don't want to move anything in the property until they sign a lease and maybe rent in this case that never happened you know after the trustee change that august twenty fourth two thousand and then the demand for possession wasn't until march thirty first two thousand and ten or than eighteen months after death so it looking at the circumstantial evidence in question i think all that reflects on whether or not there was an attempt to charge for a normal landlord would have raised that issue a year and a half or in this situation during those conversations with mr churchill beforehand there was never any suggestion about that husband would not try to wife rent to live in a home so i think all these things support the conclusion and and under your forced one three entertainer a law the burden of proof rests with the of the party seeking to change possession and the presumption is that this action by the defendant is lawful and so i don't think they met them burden of proof argument was made that it's correct yes so she was she was agreeing to pay all the expenses related to this property when he saw the religions only and that doesn't relate to the property in the right right so any other property should produce income to support its expenses and in the record there was evidence that the stocks and bonds of things that mr churchill invested in produce more than enough income to pay his trustee feed the less you know the  greatly appreciated in those rates decline or something but at that time he admitted that it was sufficient there with an exhibit going for that purpose so the first national bank chicago case that we cited says the court may consider surrounding circumstances of the time the trust was executed to a determine the seller's intent clearly i think that the other trust that is is evidence that should have been considered and was considered in this case mr churchill never have decision to admit evidence should be overturned only when no reasonable person could take the view doubted by the core of this that's ok so he cited and the court correctly looked at all the facts and circumstances as extr proof of what the true intent was the other thing that their trial court had the opportunity to do was to agree to look at the demeter of the witnesses and look at their credibility as we have the manifest weight standard but  these questions mr churchill argued things that just one of the snow that two hundred twenty five thousand dollars of liquid assets are sufficient that i should get money piling up in the trust for  e you know she's proposed something that would not result in any lawful for her active and see this property but one of the things that should be considered is that mr churchill has a duty not just the duty of the work of big world but a very would not be in her best interests doesn't take a rocket science to figure that out and he didn't back down to the gun that was taxable to her in two thousand and nine year or so of the year to ask mr park if she ever had to pay taxes the answer is yes and that's before going and you read so i think in this situation if you look at what his duty is in this case even without this experience together as i believe that he would have reese's fiduciary duty by the victim her from the proper clear very plain and there's nothing there's no textual basis for judging and i can see so i don't really understand what his means and so i have to have all this other evidence from him what we've done is t happened in two thousand and eight to try to construe what the whole intent was in two thousand and three when the terms of the tribes were absolutely clear and where we have shown that the trials gives a trustee the power to control the property that there is no contrary provision in the tribes giving alaina rights to control or reside in the property she's somehow been harmed by living in this property for two years or for a year and a half at the time of the trial without paying any expenses or any rant i don't see how they can turn that into a detriment if she's had that  opportunity and it's certainly not been detrimental to them we ask that the court look at the firm and now that it's which is absolutely clear trust agreement and nothing in the trial or in any arguments this morning will take the matter under advi