two thousand they entered or they created what i would call reciprocal wills interesting language and that essentially was a stamp and bob left everything to particular will went on to provide that in essence it is their intent that upon the death of the first of us in this case on the terms of the will the surviv created a trust in transfer certain personal property that trusts the residual beneficiaries of which were her children at the same time she or shortly thereafter she did the joint health real estate that is  where there's been the courts the term that there's a contract there's been some restriction on the surviving spouse of the ability to dispose of that property other than what was agreed to  doing bad stuff she says by any standard this is a system with the spirit of what this was all about the other hand we're supposed to be applying we'll it's written this was the between parties it seems to me that what you are asking for and i know it's the trial court russell this is what what what what does this mean this is supposed to be constructive trust where the kids in her first marriage or who is to decide these things in the other problem is all of this it seems to me is where we are see if so if robert that in fact we impose a construct construct a trust on these lines that doesn't necessarily mean that dorothy has a duty to ask permission before she expends money for  were still operating under the original reciprocal wells and dorothy's got two hundred thousand dollars through the liquidation of assets and what not she's got to cash in the fact there is no restriction on what she can do with that money in terms of going out to buy a car or take a trip seen to her daily needs especially it's what the parties basically have done what they what they've done here is no government they've provided for it they've come from different families they've provided for testamentary scheme and the part that supports the well i think in terms of in this goes back to just cited his question a moment going terms of the remedy or or any restriction i think that  thousand and six where she were later transferred the property preceding real estate proceeding her death in those transfers were set aside there was obviously was an implicit restriction on her ability to do that based upon the contract i think of one case that your honor referred to earlier has some interesting language with regard to the surviving spouses use of property including the court in that particular case which is the third district nine hundred eighty niece said essentially regarding the wording of them regardless of the wording of the will if property is left to third party beneficia this case that in effect it was a contract and then fleming was asked to decide ok so if there is a contract so white what does it mean at the facts of this case and the facts of that case where the husband what the surviving spouse is appropriate use of this property that was willed to her would be would we be the first to  all of this is for simple you know the people the who even their own self interests you know when people become widows or widow deciding that making sure things were handled appropriately the thought he had a comfortable life but that she would not be permitted to swap with the stuff or did he sell it for cash or do other things inconsistent with put any restrictions in we don't know what they're worth his well look like she died first robert inherited everything that might not have any restrictions on him minimally as i understand it that there are restrictions on dorothy's ability to use the property subsequent to robert's death those restrictions are not in this in these wells are not broke every year in a way her on the border still from whatever so that technically i guess you know even if her wills were such a side challenge it was just there was that statement surrounded by two statements to the fact that if it if there was anything left it would go to the outs there was no respect expansion on the testimony as to what having made two other wills subsequent there's going to be bound by the original well i think judge olson found that to be a binding contract no problem with that but that's that's where i've come to some difficulty again that my my concern is that the parties could have easily stated without even getting a title flowery language could have easily made statements in the well that would have set out it's our talent that whatever the survivor has will be used in a manner that you could just say soley for this needs of that  was very and and since he passed away first we don't know if he sure that that that traitor tennessee your honor the problem again i think is is trying to read this prime yes according to the language what was done and quite frankly your honour's i think the only way this court can take this situation and reverse judge olson is to lay down a blanket  there are i think there are a couple of cases that we'll go on and i asked ron i can't tell you off the top of my yeah i object is for not being able to do that but those deal with situations after the created i think if mr sign of warner for that matter if dorothy had wanted to create greater obligations on the part of the other party should that party survive there should a sudden stop or they should have done they should have enacted a different scheme  the reference to a trust being set up which would certainly could be used to do that the will themselves would have given certain property to the children that at the get go when the first party died there's a variety of ways of back that have been done if that's what the think what this war would have to look and say when this language when the when you have two wills and so i give everything to the other spouse and the survivor will leave everything to our two kids nothing more just as the language is and here that bad automatically creates a contract that by law places whatever restrictions the sport says it places on them on the disposition of the property for example it may be saying that property cannot be given to anyone else or blast the fair market value except in compliance with past traditions of the parties and charitable giving her something like that that's the type rules that i think the sport has to create in order to grant plaintiffs relief here and i think the first the first question has to be the first question does is not going to be acting in faith it's not what remedies can be granted the first question is what was the agreement of the parties is really are we even in a position where there's been some sort of a breach and that some sort of equitable relief has to be considered and i don't think we can get to that point again unless the sport is willing to go past what is that statement merits and make it a blanket rule again as a matter of law so the court's prepared to do that you're in terms of a finding that there is a contract that prohibits her from placing property in joint tenancy with her new husband which again could have been prevented by the parties have chosen to do that earlier fight i'm not i'm not suggesting that it necessarily should be set although i think that we're getting to the point of taking discretion away from parties and counties i think we have to kind of all out the people to say what they want and hopefully mean what they say and not read a lot of things into what they have just because we think well maybe they wanted to do this or maybe they wanted that they did so there was no restrictive language in these particular contracts however in the cases that have been decided by the appellate court the including this court in by the way just all of the one case that i the situation where they had made mutual will providing for equal division of property between the four children the wife dies as makes no wells for various provisions changing the son's interest you makes cash yes in advance of death the suit was for specific performance and accounting truck or rent relief it was a farm on the old but even in those instances where there are no express restrictions there have been for the lack of a better