in this particular matter as a brief show this is an appeal regarding an action that was fought against a lawyer and a law firm for representations and writings that were made t appellant relied upon the way that this case actually transpired in a lower court appears to me to look like immunity would be given fact and also promises in the future but on the basis of the existing facts now attorney mr whittles made so many statements in so many representations both in writing in oral i'll just read some of them he stated that  owner of more than sufficient funds to pay mr toko and all creditors he also stated that just as a to was a beneficiary of huge inheritance he also stated that funds had been received and payment was delayed because of his advice and it was in his trust account and two different places in new york at one time and then just in his trust account  also stated that they were in richmond grier's trust account ready for wire in one occasion he did it in writing not just orally that the funds already in one of the street address and where they could be sent he also stated that he would stake his and his firm's personal and professional reputation that this was all true he also stated that this is a true was now the owner of funds sufficient to pay everybody three cars jewelry and millions all kinds of assets and he stated that he had confirmed that his client was the owner of more than sufficient funds he also said he confirmed authenticity of documents that he had gotten which was not true he hadn't confirmed documents he hadn't done any due diligence at all just made these representations and then he continued in said he verified always information and in fact traveled to michigan to make those weapons and patients to a lawyer in two thousand and eight that was not just him to announce that the monies were there and trust account would be dispersed it was more than enough even if it wasn't there from the inheritance he also also confirmed that he had an inheritance of two hundred to four hundred million in the funds awaiting transfer pending the release signatures they still widows confirm that he also said that funds were being domesticated in new york bank account and that he had verified it he also said that specifically i have done all my due diligence and i wouldn't put my firm and myself on the line if i didn't confirm it one hundred percent he also stated the funds available but zeta would suffer subsists substantial penalties from immediate payment at one point when the money was in the trust account and it was only delayed he said because of a problem with tax and that would be resolved very quickly but the money was never in the trust account and mr toko known that there was no money in the trust account there was no inheritance that the students had not investigated had not done his due diligence he was gone and gotten his money from all the a which were lost because it turned out he had given liens to other people and were lost because after it was then decided that it was a farce and they went to suit it was a receiver appointed and the assets were all gone to the receiver despite the fact that a year before heading not been told the money was in trust account and that due diligence had been done he would have pursued it he also knew that he had faith in a person who had represented him previously he also had faith in him for another reason why he would rely upon him because he repeated we said that i would upon the steam nature of his practice the former president of the florida bar and specifically said i would never never cause myself or my firm to say something or do something that would cause us disgrace and that you can rely upon us also he relied upon him because he was not in an adversary position with him because mr wills was only employed in order to facilitate payment not in any type of adverse situations so why wouldn't you believe him when he's in their own we do priscilla take payment and that's what his purpose was as a client was concerned in order to facilitate payment number two he went outside the box of just giving an opinion or something he actually became the forefront and he traveled and in know you can go so far with something you know you can be in self defense but you can't go beyond self defense and in this particular instance he went far beyond what he would do he actually made guarantees he just didn't give an opinion or say that this is the way something is or something or be he actually guaranteed it i did my due diligence that's an absolute lie he didn't do it and he admitted that on the record is owned up is ition he also you can rely and somebody says at least i did my own due diligence you can rely on somebody whether the adverse or not and he was not adverse because i we i think there's plenty of evidence that one could find mr tucker did in fact actually rely on mr wiggles but the question is whether this that pattern can give  when you case was a person that would be more adverse than here you represented the law from there in the person represented an insurance company and he made statements that were not true regarding the insurance company in the owing a case and he was held responsible and he was the attorney for the insurance company that is winger versus been a star six ninety four hundred thirty seven eighty three six circa two thousand and twelve and the defendant lawyers who represented the life insurance company provided oral and written representations in assurances and in order to buttress the wife insurances representations and promises to point up and justifiable reliance was not negated legitimacy to an otherwise fraudulent scheme and that people might have relied or did rely reasonably arguably on the legal advice to conclude included in their mean they were in the letters were intended for potential clients or customers to rely on them that's a little different from our situation where the representations complained that are essentially factual in nature i mean you concede that that the distinction but you would say doesn't like a difference right that's correct john the reason why i'd say it would make a difference in this particular situation is because the defendant widows rose to the same level he didn't just give opinions he gave stated facts to give legal stamp of approval to everything including how can you get away with saying the money is in my trust account when it isn't i mean that's an good morning honors michelle thomas on behalf of the defendants richmond greer and john little's i'm struck by opposing counsels argument that he is kind of following the same approach that mr taco has done for years in this case and that is believing what they want to believe as opposed to what really happened i think the record is very clear in this case and judge adman's had no difficulty ferreting out the undisputed facts and that is every statement in this case oral and written with the exception of the allegations regarding the placement of funds in the richmond greer trust account were couched in future tense regarding an impending transfer of an expected inheritance is the concept that those that those very words and they're said over and over and over again in the emails in the tax it is clear that our reply was in the same waiting game in this case including mr sega's attorneys here that runs through what we're done here is that we're also essential he was passing on information that he himself believed and to some degree at least financially he was a victim of all of this himself the only question i have is whether any reasonable juror could have found to the contrary whether this was really something that was properly disposed of by summary judgment  i got the record as is perfectly clear the duty of the burden of proof mr toko was to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was an intent to defraud on the part of mr let's just focus on mr wattles that he is the individual at the firm that had all the connections communications well that's the ultimate burden of proof there is a trial i'm not sure that characterize ation is appropriate in a summary judgment  this case there was no evidence whatsoever an intent to defraud mr wattles denied it and the evidence that was made the documentary evidence corroborated that he honestly believed mr zeta representations that he merely was conveying them that he did collaborate to the extent he was allowed to by his client you know i again i think it's the most critical factor here is mr whittles was joseph said his attorney and he was abigail it to believe as clearly he owed him that professional duty the attorney client privilege precluded him from sharing anything with mr toko that mr zeta did not allow to be shared which was very very little no question about it but i think the most critical fact is mr talk oh and his attorneys were fully aware of the fact the mr hands were tied they'd naledge did they accepted it and was no evidence that he had been presented other than continued failure imus was their part to come through you know all mr almost a wells was doing was conveying mr seders representations to received dated august date and by the way that letter says we are still waiting and we have advised mr slater to continue to negotiate in order to get the entire settlement there's no representation that letter that the funds were in hand anywhere let alone in the world in the richmond trust account and then after that within two weeks after that meeting you've got an affidavit provided by mr wattles which states that he doesn't have was just one of several subsequent written communications that stated we're still waiting for the funds we believe are coming we don't have them and even if you get past risible reliance there's no cause ation here there's no question in this case that mr togo's damages arose because he failed to move forward and protect his own self interest he ignored his own attorney's advice he refused to execute  claim that had been perfected although apparently based upon mr seders again misrepresentations that these personal property items were not that were unencumbered  fact they were they were held by a bank and by night by two thousand and seven again before my clients ever became of all mr say they had no assets he had been sued within a year there were judgments against him can possibly turn that into an adversarial relationship is beyond me when you have not only ever legal interest you have the ever saw relationship between a bar and creditor and the michigan case law is very cl our courts will not put attorneys in that conflict of trying to represent people who are not aligned and this is a classic case even if you know even if mr t or any questions thank you admiral and that was months before everything blew up and of course the collateral turned out to be false too so that's not really accurate also m of these representations that were made in weight two thousand and eight where the mr wood also flew in on his own accord to convince everybody including mister that the moneys we because now even put it in writing i mean what they're asking for here is a munity what they're asking for is that a jury shouldn't decide facts situations there are sufficient facts in order to go to a jury in the problem here is what they're saying well somehow no matter what the facts are no matter how many times he misrepresented no matter when he was misrepresented as the truth no matter even though he misrepresented that he did his due diligence which he didn't do at all mr wilkes he's immune somehow because he's a lawyer that represents the other party that's not what the law says the law doesn't their taking from the point of that right to have a jury trial and a trial on the facts and everything that mystery's ada represented and how do you tell somebody the money is there in the trust account when it isn't true and think that you're going to be somehow immune from liability when somebody relies upon that those were present representations and at one time actually sends a written document and says give me your street to address i have confirmation that the funds are in points and ready to wire that's right near the end but of course they weren't ready to wire they weren't in place i think i'm out thank you very much for your argument will consider carefully thank you