and i submit that it can't be done if that's what i have to do with and i submit that i'm on out of around me and as i read her orders as i understand her she wants me to do the impossible and to go back and certainly what counsel is saying that i need to d it's done with there's no bringing it back there and as i understand the trial court judge present carroll said that no mr stamps you don't have a claim that you can bring it in in any other thing you have to go back and we resurrected somehow in that case and to the extent i submit that this i can't do that and that's that's why i went with an appeal as opposed to amended pleadings because as i read both her or hers she doesn't want anything to do with my claim my claim is to be brought in cd or the real estate they file the accounting in it's like it makes it really clear that this sends ended up with all the seventy thousand dollars from the cd and his three pieces of little state and i was able to track and obtain copies of the boo in it's not necessarily i don't think you have to i mean if if if i violated some structure limitations of bringing this claim i think that be a good argument but why does it have to be that you have to bring a claim while  and i don't really i'm not really sure but i don't think the claim is necessarily right for eric my point of bringing tell his father hates it now nothing's going to be changed now because he's dead and you can't change anything so i'm not so sure that th she says again this is the issues in this case revolve around the accounting in a probate case and should be decided by the court in that case and i submit that after willie's death there's nothing i can't really resurrect that case i would be would be a futile effort request and she denied it and still without any remedy whether or not you know for administrative purposes if she doesn't want to hear that type of claim then it's fine but that's not what she did she she said i have to go back in reopen the dead  so here here's here's what happened everything and now he's dead all right and this is that they close that case because he was dead and i think that's the proper procedure now we're going to litigate the issue of the propriet skipping the seventy thousand dollars from the cd and title to the three pieces of real estate i don't think of it we could do in probate or we could do it with sheen street but we couldn't do it necessarily in the guardianship case the guardianship case is just about who's going to be the if not all most if not all of these transfers you complain that were made before the guardianship was ever found that's correct so how can that be if if that if if the practice transferred to her before the guardian before she was guardian a power of attorney in by operation of law the power of attorney creates a fiduciary relationship between the two parties in then she goes to him in the teens control of the certificate of deposit  seven thousand dollars to one benny in one eye lashes that she took that money and didn't use it for herself if she did use it first of all she didn't use it for anything related to mr stamps and i think that a lot of people when they get a power of attorney they assume know i can do whatever i want with this which is true but it's supposed to be for a purpose related to the care of her father mr steams and that i have heard mr strikes arguments and your questions answered i look at it almost more not so much as a abjection to a guardianship case or an accounting  very clear under title of the complaint is wanting his share of what he perceived to be his share of the deceit and the state when mr  indicates that he that the guardianship proceeded there with an accounting and by the time mr stance died there was nothing more they could do i don't accept that because mr and his client the mother of the current client were given full notice of the every step of the proceeding in their partnership because they had the accounting well before the court approved it there was ample opportunity to have time for him to step in and file an objection if he felt that was appropriate also he clearly have filed the petition and probate instead of the instant action that certainly was a viable where the plaintiff was contesting conveniences of the dissidents real estate to another party and in their case which i which was cited by mr a to be filed necessarily in the probate did this isn't but it occurred to me if the trial court had heard this complaint and in fact if the trial court had taken it to its ultimate conclusion and have there been a decision against my client what about the fact that there could have been other errors what about the fact that there in that typical if you follow the procedures that the nineteen and i strongly argued that the complaint was insufficient law to state a cause of action and i still maintain that and i think that's what the trial court was confused over is because it really didn't state a complaint it sort of just can be set aside and the probate court has the the circuit court has the ability and the tools with which to make that determination make that analysis  but he chose not to do chose not to do any of those things that could have been done or possibly could still could be could could be done he argued there at he did not have the capacity to and i think maybe i've touched on the complaint assume there's an awful lot of things that that you just can't assume in a complaint so if there a call the allegations in this verified complaint for a position of constructive trust breach of fiduciary duty in other problems addresses actions taken by the defendant while she acted on her power of attorney and guardianship case number zero seven p twenty five what the orders you should've traded and then haven't seen you know you can't and then you're thrown out of work and you've got something