dixon case and i think probably the simplest and the most accurate statement of the logic behind all of these cases is found in the cross case referred to the  they said that what that says and it's a quote i believe or paraphrase but it's it's a very good signal what's going on here which is well in terms of the trust do not evidence an intent to exclude adopted persons generally and that's true in our case there's nothing about the language of the trust that answer the question one way other we would be here otherwise the court is convinced that it should not be for such a statutory presumption and again there's a statute for exemption michigan which we have also the one nine hundred fifty five law abuse of the adoption process and the end result would violate the settlers probable ten and normal expectation i think probably in ten and normal expectations is what all these other cases are trying to trying to get to  the cross case use the word subterfuge which i'm not excited about i don't i think it was a preview says something different than what happened here but in court in citing the the binary case out of kentucky that cross case if this practice does great violence to the intent and purpose of our options laws should not be and going back to one nine hundred fifty five when the presumption was shifted there was no adoption of that we agree with the courts of other jurisdictions which have prohibited the practice so the point isn't that the the essential facts of what happened here what happens in these other cases is somebody makes a will and then they die and then a child of theirs adopts somebody who is in adult and in each one of these cases and the adoption is done after the will is written obviously after the person has died and they can't change it and also after the wills been filed in his case betty had notice of her mother's will maybe diagnose until the will gets filed she gets a copy in the course of the and then she decides well i can do something about it i can adopt my stepson who is now twenty two or three years old and make human error at the trial when greg was asked the reason for this adoption the first thing that came out of his mouth was first degree and you know ya she loved me and we never had any fights very well never had any fights is pretty faint praise for a relationship i would say that certainly doesn't get you in a position where somebody would expect to leave you in property i think that maybe that's kind of a weak description of the relationship that was testif right then he stopped being mother daughter of grandmother and we'll call it c and we're looking at here is the intent of the grandmother and the grandfather actually well yeah but if you look at well do we really care what the grandfather was intended meaning because he could have said well you know that was that was ok but what i don't want that to be well what happens to the rest of my estate well his he's also one we're is we don't know for sure but the inference is after he learned of this adoption he knew what he wanted to do why should we think it changes the differences he got new information he knew that this person who he knew is  exactly right and that's what he or she has a question for you mention the cost case and i was looking at that case and obviously comparing it to the facts of this case and there's a distinction that i noticed and i want to get your thoughts on that in the cross case we have a situation where the person was adopted and then they were they were seeking to hear it from the person who was deceased the grandmother yet in our case evelyn did provide that descendants of betty would be able to get here if she no longer lived so it's not as if i mean i realize it came from evelyn right but betty was deceased in this person was her descended and that was was preparing her will she pretty much knew her descendants when i'm sad but she did leave open the question of who would be betty dissidence she did not say current oh now li descendants and so while not likely betty could become pregnant and have another child in that town wouldn't have been excluded so why is this different father ten years before he will be three and they lived together five years before that so they knew him really well and who it was when you make a will it says i'm going to give something to my daughter's ascendancy she doesn't have any but she has a stepson is twenty three years old in would be if i intended that person to take anything i would have had to name him has a beneficial because i can trust the fact that my daughter might adopt him and make him a descent if i want him to pick something i'm go do something like this you know so what if she loved you you know she didn't adopt him when he was eighteen when she when she had a chance to she didn't tell his own what he told his natural mother for years after the second or fifteen years later whe had they actually commented on most likely way way more probable than not is that she did not expect that you know people do that but my mother did the very same thing which is way outside the record that people make provisions for the descendants of their children knowing  not expecting the will ever have any because they know they want to don't shut the door on the possibility my forty five year old daughter might have a no i don't want to i don't want to say i know she won't you know she's my daughter i love her i don't want to offend her see did he mention the evidence and of course jett steadman found that it was clear from the evidence that in part this was motivated in order to make him eligible to hear it but also was a rather hard to age situation because doctors were much older than twenty three but what's not different is the fact that the adopted person was done adopted very unexpectedly at least unexpectedly to the people who were making case is also strikingly similar to cross and dixon for the same reasons and i do think it's relevant to consider the grandfather that is liles later will and and how he handles the issue with the adopted adult first of all he this inherits brick by name and then by category several subsequent documents he has he never changes that he changes who else is in the mouth it will say he's making clear his intent for the future and then he's dissatisfied with what has occurred but that he we can't read her intent from his simply because they did a joint trust credibility right that's what i think that he admits yeah sure that's part of it that's what parents do for their children whatever their age they plan for the future well i think that that shows that there isn't passion to and even though it's not clearly stated in the the trust itself it wasn't in these other cases either we're looking at the extrinsic evidence here and i think that there's a very strong presumption that the sole the evidence shows your honor that with the words of greg himself that was for you to state that the other needs would have to be i suppose primal needs would be the other rationale or given the fact that this twenty four year old that twenty t twenty i don't want to speculate and wonderful child past the age of eighteen i don't know that there was evidence that the pronoun needed such as he did support need help going to college need help with a place to stay things that parents do  think the word soul is in there and i'm tap dancing around this and playing i don't think it i don't think it can be solely when you couple it with the type of evidence that's available i don't think what cross stance worse if you adopted greg who was an adult but who had a fifteen really fifteen year relationship not whiteclay all the biologically not impossible children yet evelyn her mother made provisions for her the sentence the law provide have those descendants would be evelyn's as a law provided she could adopt a child at that time the law provided she could adopt an adult which is exactly what she did talk about probable expectation and truly there's no way to know but the law my birth option rather and that's exactly what happened in the appellants rely on process and there was some discussion about across case and i think there is a distinction in the language and at the time both law allowed betty to obtain descendants other than by the natural birth she could have adopted three orphans from the third world and they would have been h sentence would have taken and i don't think we would be here today and i don't think we should be here today based upon the evidence heard because i don't think that was a sub we're not going to look to the extrinsic evidence as to the relationship between the a doctor and the adoptee because the law only only relates to the law of test to see the adoption of an adult is a subterfuge or maybe a subterfuge in derogation of the ultimate and probable likely we've had a fellow who is the docking party who adopts the children of a woman who you he married at age eighty seven adopted her i think the youngest of the bunch was fifty five at age ninety one he adopted him and this is his wife who became his wife after she was his bookkeeper and after she charged his estate to go this it him when he was near death some years before i mean it was a business relationship she had been his power of attorney she'd paid her kids to care for the insurance company had paid her kids the top ones to pay for  the lawyer who was managing the of state essential he said mr hughes and barbara white can cut a deal she was going to take care of him and he would take care of her reason why he was purpose he was going to work that the by which he was going to take care of was about some other child that's totally different than the evidence presented to judge stedman and that that he found credible and that that he made a basis for his decision which recchi yes there was a fine component of that section but ultimately it was the like parent child relationship it was the fact that that he had no other children and that he had been stepped up and betty had been actively continuously conscientiously caring for greg and she did what she did based upon that as much or more than any other raise and it's certainly a financial reasons were not the sole reason for the solemn as a share of the relationship that existed between the two i believe the judge recognized that i believe that's what the judge found that belief that was the basis for his decision and i believe it's not a reason i don't think you've used this scratch i believe this decision was proper based upon all of the evidence presented most of which was stipulated the rest of which was present through live testimony he found what he found i believe the section correct and i think it's a proper  he wants to a soul the virtues of the relationship between betty and greg peters if your relationship was that strong on the adoption could have been done before he was eighteen or i think more importantly to the facts of this case option could have been done when he turned eighteen and if you look at the timing of the adoption he had already been an adult for years and it comes within less than a year of evelyn di until after evelyn died and i think i don't know how it was explored but it wasn't there were efforts to trying to be thoughtful as to the feelings of his biological mother apologize but that they were almost co parenting if they were that close there should have been that much bridging are by memorializing a relationship that she said was there and once again that still could have been know i don't agree with i mean personal experience i don't have any in that regard but i certainly do about people who are very good friends they like each other and when one does not take to the other th i saw some astonishing thing and that still could have been done after e g the book before evel shot and i think that is portman in this particular case the timing so soon after evelyn's death you couple that with this was very clearly financial purposes as well he said it he didn't mince any words about it it was for financial purposes there was no other reason that this would memorialize  traditional coronal relationship if it was for the estate purposes of itself and he said it multiple times what about opposing counsel's argument that the documents left open the ability of betty to actually take descendants if she simply it that i think realistically that betty assuming evelyn would have anticipated an adult adoption so i think when you look at those documents and they're being done in one in a way i think she was trying to leave the door open for betty to go find an adult  adopt to get her share of the estate it was going to pass on to the rest of the family it's not something that she would have if i agreed that you have to look you're looking at the additional fact this dog but what she  by with the church an adopted that one or two children from some mission i think she did it after after the death or near the time that that to everyone you know in a failing health perhaps i think that's something that's position for financial gain