to which objections continue to pend right you know at the time that this very motion to remove was considered in the very basis asserted now you know at the four years to the day of death or testator but in earlier in january of that same year and then to distrust for the last time but it had been around for years before that and he never signed any of personal alleged the grounds for removal in the motion for partial summary judgment here were if you look at precisely what was the less it's the personal property which is what was before the the trust including the personal profit it was specifically because we none of that is disputed and therefore partial summary judgments only on the issue of liability damages to be determined later should be granted to the finish we should be held liable for every  by and this was a disputed two she had allowed her council to execute documents that permitted in a risk of trust to be transferred to her father rather than to have it transferred into the under no circumstance would it ever go to the state trial court agreed that that was that meant that this these assets would never be become probably assets in therefore she did not breach or fiduciary duty in preventing her attorneys to make sure geisha all kinds of efforts to make the house better there was there are things that came out of the counting relating to refurbishing of the house there was a wrong problem in the house there was those don't give rise to issues from her accounting in any way as grounds to remove or i just want to point out that in the widely vs was no case the overriding theme is and this is on page one breach of trust may not be sufficient it must be such misconduct as to show want to capacity or fidelity putting the trust in jeopardy he goes on to say is only a case of real or threatened diversion of trust funds or property she what she did with the personal property the issues relating to being in the house all came out in that probate situation testimony and it was before this court the the the trial court at the time of of deciding to remove or there was no finding by the trial court of in a in danger of the trust property there was no finding of gross negligence on the part of the trustee and many well there are women actually cuts against him because the the failure to distribute the personal property and everything that was in the state which is a as you know to or will the feel you're to distribute that stuff into the trust is itself a breach she's holding stuff partly in the in the state partly in the trust not doing any administration whatsoever charging the trust bills you know that added up to a significant amount over fifty thousand dollars by its response was well that the each or we did a trial in trial court but there's been no judgment now there's been a judgment and i don't know if this is proper but to the extent i can do it i would i would move to supplement the record in this appeal with that judgment and the judgment motion for summary judgment if you look at the order which is which he's appealing from the order that he's appealing from list there were three launches up before the truck one of which was a petition to remove another one which he focused primarily on was  motion for summary judgment and there were objections to the counting there were three different line items in that trial were one of which great of the petition to remove the other which one of the others granted the motion for summary judgment so when he's referring to things that were before the read through the transcript he's not he's not talking about the personal property although that that is an issue the fact that it wasn't transferred in the trust the fact that the that the beneficiaries had not received a single piece of it that she unilaterally decided to  things at wal mart for which we have no receipt and at target which we have no receipt gasoline and all these things but no i will agree with them there was significantly more self healing and theft out of the state assets there was many many insufficient accountings and not confined to counties or one bases the ended up being a almost a four year stay in the house without paying any right to the trust and while the trust is paying all of well both necessary until it has to keep the the house up kept and also utilities are being used while she's living there if she's not going there and the electricity is on the lights are there on when you need them to be on but during a showing or something like that but when she's moving there and she's got the lights on and she's got the heat on and she's got the cable on and there was no charges for internet service and cable service that are in the trust accountings being paid out of the trust those are things that are not necessary for the administration to trust and i think trough word saw that and that's that's part of the reason why she was removed when you have a separate action  there was there there was a petition to remove she's already been removed in the and if you look at their record at two thirty four the digitally order to file an amended accounting and even the amended account the after after all this time in all these attempts and and all this dickensian proceedings going on trying to get the trustee to do something or show something benefiting the trust also that she was using the trust main asset the house as her second home or as her primary residence she was living in it she refused to move out she refused to pay rent to the trust she was charging or personal expenses to trust bank accounts the utilities like and like the euro's mention were being paid out of the trust accounts and these retailers that she's using personally because she's living  going that the houses are in the trust there was there was no need to marshall it what what could have happened or she could have waited it out to somebody else which would've brought income into the trust and not enrich herself at the expense of the trust she could have sold it in a in a reasonable manner which didn't happen in the trial or was aware of that and actually there is it's made reference to in the in the final order that the house and saw for three half years and when she after she was removed and sold there was a sign appellate was playing what i call them a shell game which is anytime you complain about something it was in the other form when you complained in the estate it was in the trust and that was that was the way the complaint was  y their complaint was filed for half months after the death the last time that they say that they complained about the failure to provide an accounting is thirteen months into a he counting really should begin with the first fund you know of of the the trust but the point is my point is all of this stuff about how she you know these are great she's violations and this unlimited please what was pending was a motion for process and we just the motion for personal summary judgment was what my predecessor counsel responded to in opposition to what happened here and so they're but you know it but even if you even if you believe that there is a set of undisputed facts if reasonably reasonable minded persons can differ on the inference is to be drawn from those on this be fact then you still don't have a grounds for none of it and you know what the the there there was no the italians that event that are attached in the record show no payment of attorneys fees to anybody but mr rathbun's office but also shows that this rep when returned fees and it's in the the account i'm not sure quite how to handle the whole thing about the truck the judge did rule last friday on the on the underlying trial two months my we're taking that as nothing to do with whether she was properly removed and in order to finish trust a ministration she should be made trustee again because it wasn't the proper basis for a move here in the first place is a probate estate that's in the finished pay over to trust distribute in accordance with the