sorry about that mr stewart this if leave for this case is about the concept of equitable deviation the trust its purpose and its possible termination lifetime and subsequent to her death within a carefully drawn thirteen page document she provided income and principal for her lifetime including within the trust  gave a set amount basically and found but a set amount defined as a unit trust him to individuals beneficiaries for their lifetime providing the common at the death of the last individual to die she could have caused the trust terminated under any condition and spin out in full to the church she did not she said at that point if the assets exceed five hundred thousand dollars the trust was committed to continue under a separate set of provision there is no provision within the trust document that specifically states that if the assets ever dropped during the pendency of the trough below five hundred thousand the trust would terminate the individual died who were receiving the unit trust amount the amounts were calculated and the trust was funded and continued if it was in excess of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars those sums at that point in time would have been spun out automatically to the church with their documents she said i would provided for the larger share to friends of hospital sisters franc division of the hospital sisters of st francis foundation because of my belief that and as much as their activities cover such a wide range of charitable and religious works they are the best able to determine how to allocate in  the income so received by the income was divided twenty percent to the church a little flower twenty percent to st joseph's home and sixty percent the friends of the hospital sisters of st franc subsequent to the terminations of the unit trust provisions there was no provision at that time to reduce the income be paid out to the charities which there was no provision not to reduce the charitable distributions by the trustees it under the provisions when the unit trust was in fact the powers include power of investment reinvestment of trust property and bonds including time deposits and other accounts with then the corporate trustee the trust language states that the trustees exercise or not  protecting and prohibiting the beneficiary from alienating an interest or having creditors reach into the trust or else the trust provides for merger and transfers the trial court in the order that is being appealed from the state or to page three in this case it is clear the set or consider the possibility that it would be in the best interests of the beneficiaries that the trust be terminated work is not to have the proceeds disproportionately eaten by bank fees but rather to allocate funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries given the set morris intent of the stablish enough threshold level to cause t it is inconceivable to settle or would have unreasonably and tended for the trustee to collect more in a ministration these than two of the beneficiaries received an actual then we get into the compliance is not impossible compliance is not illegal and we believe that there is no circumstance not known to the senate floor and not anticipated by  cases cited by the plaintiff i didn't search i do not find any case of why they discussed the terms and said this is a concept but i've never seen it applied in any case in the state of illinois the courts when you're dealing with them cypre it's been the normal doctrine that we have seen charitable purposes in the intent carried out of charitable purposes and in discussion on the  a doctrine which has been there for over a hundred years the authorities cited in in the briefs the former case the authorities consistently state that the power to break in on the terms of a trash  manifested a general intention to devote property to charitable purposes the trust will not be permitted to fail or will executed cypre offerman case in addition and discusses a deviation in addition equitable deviation is only proper when literal compliance with the terms of the trust is impossible as a result of an unforeseen lose the trust as being unreasonable and unnecessary how they go about doing so i think in this case and we attempted to bring this before the or the beneficiary has a right to in the court sitting in chancery to review the accountants and to review the reasonable compensation and how that compensation is determined so that in the nature of the petition for accounting from trusts the first number whatever accounting or surcharge to recover back improperly ate or excessive and as i understand that did not have that did not the case which was stated and argued on both sides stated that the courts are slow to exercise their power even to modify the terms of interest much less terminate the trust modify the terms of the trials court have the right to direct out that the funds be distributed into an in down that or into the hands of the charities subject to the terms and provisions of the traps or remove the trustee and appointed a new one but what they're seeking in the what the charities were seeking to do in this case is fully terminate the trust and put it in to the hands of the chair we don't think the doctrine of equitable ation goes that far the trust purpose set or set a determination of the assets to fund an ongoing charitable trust truly set up into three segment during the lifetime of the seven or she was trying to make sure that her needs were met by the trustee that she selected income was to go to her in the principle if it was necessary for or in the discretion of the trustee if wanted to support under the provisions of the internal revenue code she had to set it up in the form that unitarians church will remain or unit trusts and she used the unit trust amount but she carefully crafted in under that in phase two that seven percent of the net fair market value every year went out to the receptionist the individuals receiving death of the last of both unit trust re scipio the trustee was to sit down and determine how much we haven't asked us if it's less than five hundred thousand dollars it spun out immediately to the cha if it's in excess of that the trust continues under new terms and probation if it's actually at that point in time in excess of seven hundred fifty thousand the charities get th free and clear for the restriction so if it's between five hundred and seventy seven hundred fifty thousand dollars on the couple last unit process the trust gets the stab as part of managing the whole if you look at the trust act there is only one time where the figures of five hundred thousand and seven hundred fifty thousand i'm in the play at the depth of  thousand trust us and say maybe i misunderstood you said the five hundred thousand doesn't mean he won't if if you look at the trust document says only at the time of the death of the last of the unit trust individuals is the five hundred thousand taken into account it doesn't continue if it ever drops if it dropped tomorrow to four hundred fifty thousand dollars the trust does not provide that it has to be terms and provisions of the trust restriction so that they would place it in their own balance using only the income from that for their charitable purposes seen that fashion in several different case and based on that one argument within the court's order i found that at that point in time the drafting attorney might have been of assistance but i think the document  the drafting attorney in the sept war could have said after the charities or during that third period when strictly for the benefit of the charities they shall receive the gross income on adjusted by any unfortunately we're dealing with banks that and this bank has been first national bank first bank mercantile u s bank series of mergers when i can't answer that ok is that one of us banks main arguments is that the trial were to not have authority to grant relief under equable deviation because there is no president with a similar set of facts that is using crack because this is an equity case and it's a maxim of that body that you be second the illinois attorney general's office charitable trust bureau as a representative of the people of illinois is charged with supervising all turtle trusts in illinois that it would be it would say charitable assets and would be in the best interests of the charities and the people of state of illinois as the ultimate beneficiary of those charities to terminate the trust and to distribute the assets to after the last dive the individual beneficiaries happened in late two thousand and five we did discover in this case for all of two thousand and three twenty times so based on all of those numbers the expenses account for thirty three percent of the down generated by this trust during that period so it is it is well above the twenty five percent mark and the charitable trust act the church of all of our strongly believes that the trustee refuses to terminate t trust in the best interest of the beneficiaries and its own enters its own interests of continuing to generate the income for the service is also relevant that the trustee has a duty to defend the trust so they have no duty to defend the trust on appeal so this point they're acting on their own back to touch on this as well because in the reply brief they said that in support of their argument that the said lawrence has fitted the amount of g s that the said more specifically picked us back it did not stick specifically pick us back it stayed picked the hometown regional small first national bank street that is not the same bank that we have today through whatever mergers have happened since then u s bank is the fifth or sixth largest bank largest commercial bank in the country based on assets it is not they refused to do it already meets their requirements to terminate trust act they refused to do it he said that fisheries can go into chancery court to terminate the trust that's what we did that this is our argument we can't go away on any other basis this is the only basis that we can it's to provide income only to the beneficiaries well since that time the i r s rules have changed and it is required that you have to distribute five percent every year of the total amount of the trust and if you don't follow that then you're hit with heavy i say the essence of the total amount the assets have to be distributed each year well within that amount that is distributed each year the administrative fees are included so that five percent each year they are taking thirty percent which only vs seventy percent for the beneficiaries which as a twenty percent beneficiary means by quite is only fourteen percent and the point is they really haven't earned those the trustee would be pain itself three and a half times what the church will of ours because ok the average income is about twenty five thousand dollars a year so they are charging eight thousand to nine thousand in fees with another two thousand and expenses so if you subtract all the expenses from the income first and then multiply by twenty percent my client would only be getting twenty five hundred dollars or three thousand dollars so that  percentage basis fees so i think really because when do you what the trial court relied on and what was my main point because yes i don't think all charitable beneficiaries should be able to just drafted because what is good what is the logical inference to draw from that provision she said if it's less than five hundred thousand dollars that the title of the last individual beneficial to die to me that means i don't want to inefficient trust to continue when of much lower transaction costs much lower ministration these charges by the trustee because it's really just a you know that's a very round number to pay and so my argument is she picked that round over it means she didn't us back one thousand dollars a year when the trust is on autopilot and they're really not spending very much time working on it and it's just a percentage basis i don't that's my arguments i don't think so that's not what the girls who want to make good are very particular but i can't help but notice many language of the illinois supreme court is it it what it appears clear to the court that compliance due to circumstances not anticipated by some or the compliance with the future substantially impair the accomplishment of the purpose of the trust so it's the same as reformation cases the course put in the position of the settle and yes you look at the language of the trust but you also have to make just a reasonable it's just a response a question like does this make sense based on all the evidence i have do i think the set or would want th you have to i mean you're forced into that question that's the nature of the clock is it really is that's just the nature how else would you be able to say it because if the point is that it will deviation the whole point is she didn't anticipate something so she didn't put any provisions relating to the circumstances in the trust that's the whole point of the point so clearly most of the time there's aka gaping and trust that relates to the question that we're talking about because the whole point is she did his fate in this case she was still alive was i would like to know what other amounts of income u s bank generates from this trust that are not in the record because they invest a large amount of the trust assets in europe rights are usual ones who are making a lot more money off this trust said the own to me that suggests they're acting for their own self interest so they get their fees and they're not acting on behalf of the set is that your yes and i would support that by saying they have been ordered by a  level once the justice system has reached a decision as to what is the right thing to do with the trust the trustees duty to defend the trust rather the entire terms of the trucks and that is the reason why we're here i think it's various points within the various pleadings that have been filed there are broad brush statements about the fees being charged fees assume door implications of additional fees and to me that gets into a reasonable compensation not one distribution of regular distributions to the beneficiaries in the plaintiff says that the charities are quote not irresponsible young adults who need the trust each prevent them from squandering their own heritance these charities are fairly sophisticated capable of independently invest the trust assets wisely such that the gift from the settler will be prudently utilized that's not what they're asking  they're asking for immediate distribution of all assets korean clear of any restrictions whatsoever and this is where i think the trout were one element that they use  expression full terminations of this trust without any restriction there will be no other payments and six months from now those funds could be dissipated the flagship the hospital sisters st john's hospital lost money last year we don't know where the medical needs will be and we don't know the status of hospitals but what the said or intended was not only for the charity that or charities that she felt would make sure that on an annual basis they would determine the needs of her community and distributed in accordance witness the unit trust provisions versus the final secondly i don't see th was merely providing funds out for allocation by the chair it was to provide an insulation of those funds within the trust itself was to provide for