judge elizabeth robb presided over this trial for a full two days or trial and the appeal that is taken here today is taken on an issue that  probably we spent less than twenty percent of the trial time discussing the claimants waste claim consumed at least eighty percent and probably more than that  the actual today's rock i'm i digress a minute and say i think this is an important case for the justices here today really three reasons and those are outside of this case but one is the increase or advent of medicare the other is the increased exemption in the state death taxes and the third is quite frankly i think mr de very w importance of this case with respect to medicaid is a report from the field and i think mr greville would agree we are using on a daily practice more life of states once again than we have  d i think popular in the last four years was to have a national trust and now we're using those life of states as kind of poor man's answer to those more explicit trucks the illinois exemption for state taxes now when those dollars for people of substantial means are now using life states more often and again the lack of case law so i think that's why this case is important  and it's record one seventy two run indicates that even if claimants were able to identify the personal property referenced in the final report a life tenet in personal property gives life to end of the right to consume such things as cannot be enjoyed without consuming it is a correct statement from walker v pritchard eighteen age seven she goes on to say though but illinois case law is clear the life tentative such personal property has the right to soon such a property that is not the law and what i believe the law is viewed as the involved embodied in the time you were left the combine that was already twenty years old and during that twenty eight years you need to replace the combine and you put some money towards it yourself plus the combine that trait is i mean that gets very complicated how do you determine that those is or is not remaining by the state in their piece of property i think the exception like in advance maybe one further step the exception is quickly specifically talks about  investments this so that comes up here i'm sorry so please bear with me because i just can't say that word no matter how hard it throws up the contention of the light and it is predicated upon and of using the horse in your daily activity to plant to harvest except for is consistent but that does get used up weekly points out cash i think that means that getting back to justice post issue there are some elements of quantity for instance one reason one way in which to solve the combine question would be to go to court and say hey i've got a four hundred thousand dollars combine that i want to trade against substantial last i don't know if that helps in answering or jiving walker with quickly but i think it does me devise we all of my property of every kind of nature and description and where we're situated all of my property of every kind nature and description and where ever situate goes on to say in any property in which i have and i'm not trying know what it means quite frankly however that it follows with the typical life state language to francis for hers to use and enjoy for him during the term of the natural life typical language of  francis but everything else is in this life estate irrevocably again we get to an element of quantitative analysis not to be funny but i believe his underwear and church are probably in this life the state also now that's not what we're talking about day but there is no other element of harold's will there is no other property that terms we're arguing about the effect of a wife still not some of this other trust language however in the will it talks about the entire corpus again that's trust language but it also says an example might be in principle an income act you invested in apple computer apple computer is now worth a lot more so now that it is worth a lot more that would be in a few mutilated value if francis died with that apple stock and she's allowed to make those investments throughout her lifetime trading in trading out selling buying and doing those things that you would normally do to invest your funds invest your k we don't have any complaint about that issue specific the specific issue that we are thinking that judge erred on was misinterpreting the will misinterpreting the will because in that same section of she's talking about that number one there's a right to consume the property but she's also talking about failing to identify a life a state assets she she never identified all of harold's a state going to the life of say that was not in her order and quite frankly i think believe that the proper ruling of the court that at this juncture with with you all would be then the explanation of personal property or the explanation of property in the final report and this is appendix twenty three the undersigned would further report that she is paid  all items as inventory did i emphasize as indent toward in this is in the final report about a year and two months later notes and cage mortgages notes and patient one hundred thousand eight hundred dollars seventy nine cents i say hey because those those are ok she welcomes but just disconnect we're also thinking that the personal property including grain and other items of personal property sixty seven thousand two hundred forty eight dollars is also subject to this life estate restriction and we speak be that as you close the estate you set up a separate account and you say this is the life of state money this is the life of state grain sales when i sell them and here is my this is a claim again it sounds insulting that francis didn't handle those assets proper she didn't handle those assets in this accounting method at the time  cash and we believe that the court should indicate that the sixty seven thousand to forty eight is also the burden of the life tenant to show what happened to those to those have a claim that the fifty bushel of oaks oats in the hundred bushel of corn yes the grain of it would total sixty seven thousand dollars or part of sixty seven thousand dollars i say no in that sense because it would be a cage so your op would be a proper accounting would show our proper accounting in future we show that sixty seven thousand new green was so received by the life of state there were some expenses household or whatever that can be charged against that but the remainder of that should have been segregated and only the entries from that should have been you so you might end up with one hundred forty five thousand cash because the green would be converted to a cash equivalent and once you assert a claim it's the well i think she said that it doesn't make any difference because we could have the branches could have spent all that money and didn't spend all that money so so she she didn't get to that point of differentiating between the one hundred thousand and sixty seven dollars she she indicated all of that was consumable and that's and that's where we believe she misinterpreted life state the next step would be if the grand tour or the south or the life state didn't provide a clear listing her distinction as to what assets were it is individually owned and then which of those assets he wanted to claim or want to have subject to life estate if someone other than the grants or the settlers trying to subject assets that are in possession of another in this case say i believe it's probably based on to underline of notions an examination of the language within the inventory and then within the final account the m p community there and i believe this one hundred state we think that's it yes because the life the remainder men are saying that we know that was one hundred thousand dollars liquid cash and that that should have  identifies the total personal estate as valued at one hundred five thousand dollars and then it identifies the one hundred thousand dollars figure a little more those two documents alone conclude that that those two documents on their face are sufficient to satisfy the hundreds of the evidence standard that a claim hash on both documents or even on one document you might have a stronger in their view a stronger argument obviously that that that was one hundred thousand dollars cash there's no doubt what was it  kind of evidence before them to consider along with all the other all the other evidence as to whether the burden of proof in the end i think this was a fine place  first identified i found that on these assets the one hundred thousand dollars the sixty seven thousand worth of other types of assets were assets that was subject to a life state and then made a ruling house but you can't tear it down and sell it for you for a while right whatever whatever the example is but forgetting that for the moment you're back to the point that nobody knows what's in the wife  even if we did know what was in life and state these items are specifically identified and might correct i think the discussion regarding walker person richard was thrown in to say not only if we think it goes do you lose no i don't think that those assets were identified as being assets individually owned worry is there a standard review is there some testimony in this case that pertained to the question of what that figure means or is this all just documentary evidence which should be reviewed the nova well i've i guess my personal property is life that a great consume such things cannot be enjoyed without consuming them that wear out but use such things as could be used without worry though i think that's an accurate representation of is just as correct said retired guy or spoil or that you have to do something with cash sits there it's not going to  why doesn't quickly resolve the question of how that has to be treated those who wifes that even under modern today no matter to use the grain on hand to feed the cattle they're a part of the farming operation that's part of the life state right i think so ok and but if there's no farm on here there's no cattle and there's no farm nothing left to be done and i've got a been full of grain i'm going to sell that grain i mean to convert it to cash on  e my but my understanding of these from the evidence so that was for this reason that the lower court the testimony was that they did keep a certain number of cattle animals around the farm that grain so forth and so i don't know there was sufficient yet making light of this notion we do agree and we have conceded that the twenty eight thousand five hundred fifty five dollars forty four census was outlined  ms being paid in that file was so that's where the light deliveries are from not this concept maybe their mortgages and those kinds of things in an inventory you only put positive assets for we are requesting then the but let me make one more point if i may during my time sure sure the final report also is when we draw on page two which no one generally reads but on page two of the final report which would be our appendix twenty four the undersigned would further report that she has retained naming assets in such a state in accordance with the last will and testament  that's in the final report she self attesting saying hey i'm going to handle these assets the way the will told me to handle the s s that's also in this final and i think if i don't say  that they that that's a very important part of what our clients is that judge rob didn't find a like the state in all assets but we did this for the report that says i'm going to handle this our opinion like a like the state with all the remaining assets how that relates to your specific question we believe sixty seven thousand to forty eight carries that same burn of the life ten meaning a life tenet says this sixty seven thousand two hundred forty eight dollars was cattle opinion is that best serves future people with life estates as nature would be to allow for and required in the life tend to be the one that is the accounting for how that grain was used if it was used to feed cattle that were on the farm which part of i like operation that would be natural consumption but if the farming operation came to an end which are an issue with the jury asking us to reverse the trial court to say it goes to you folks the sixty seven thousand is just kind of floating in the ether and i don't believe so with respect to the page thirty five