clear and there's no dispute as to the intent now forfeiture is a harsh consequence but in this context not really because in this context this forfeiture is by definition self inflicted well that really is this is a big question whether the proceedings brought by  issued to her soul as the sole exact even though my other three simply are designated and interestingly the language of the will identifies the four of them that we're going to be able to rule for there's no way that you can work together and the holding of that was that was that was known at the time there is always a potential for conflict perhaps not as extreme put that behind them but they practically probably unlikely but only at the point where they can't resolve their differences and who form their duties and they come in and say look we're not getting it but like a deadlocked board of directors we need somebody to step in and take care of this special administrator on certain issues or what have  so we can't have this relief unless the for help court determines as a matter of law that he's not bound by that that it is not valid but we're not really challenging applies to forfeitures and the evidence has to be clear the temp of the parties has to be clear and i don't think to get a lawyer with bicep appoint me but isn't that different than asking or saying it's not valid that we have four executors isn't that different and that's what the anybody to file anything as long as they don't use the magic in other words i'm not saying the provision is invalid chord i'm just asking you to ignore that and not important and that's that's the problem i think with the appellee start saying ignore it and do what i want you to anyway somehow distinguished from saying well the provision is valid i loophole that could be done because what that does is open up the door for imaginative semantic structuring of pleading so that they don't really is the b word but they can st police proceeding was commenced and continues for approximately three months despite objections to the briefing right up until it was withdrawn on the date set for here but the language is clear it's comments and again that's watch ecole because that would prevent a party from filing whatever they chose to designated in it and if you think about it that the door of it is open from that argument is that anytime you have multiple there's you'll have this threshold where they come in and say well you know my brother bought him didn't offer ten years or he doesn't respect a family farm to pass on so i can't get agree agree with him if you open the speculate that because of our family relationship we've got opens the door for this kind of proceeding which the interim laws is intended to eliminate without that he is clear language chosen by the testator's and many of us which use commencement that was in fact the holding of the i know i'm going to pronounce  proceeding that was a commencement of a proceeding that triggered that into your now once triggered then it has to be enforced because again the purpose of it which is is for judicial economy to prevent speculative flyers well let's just throw it out see maybe we can find a sympathetic judge by our argument this i suspect was filed simply because this woman just couldn't bring herself to put her brothers and sisters on gas co executors and follower her mother's wish that is the bar the door anybody can file whatever they want to take a flyer on it use don't use the magic word and worst case there's no consequence in court after much time effort is  m by the court this language this was to address these things at the beach you don't  with the known consequences it's probably the example of it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission and from bosses or to eliminate  trigger the no contest law so that you're opening up the floodgates to litigation arguments down the road but the courts have repeatedly said rather not these that you have to look at these cases on an individual basis each of these cases are the cool and your honor when you brought up the question a moment ago to mr randall is to rather not conny had her mother dies on november eighteenth two thousand and thirteen the will is filed on december five on the twenty ninth day there was no communication from her two as the record indicates she had a legitimate concern that her brother who was one of the nominated executors was in fact you know selling off assets of the estate being carol so on the twenty ninth day she took now they would like you to think that that meant even though she suggested under the facts of the case that she suggested that she be appointed they would like you to think that that was some sort of a contest to the lid of the of the clause nominating the for the first place she wasn't saying that it wasn't legally binding she wasn't saying that it was insufficient she wasn't saying that mother is in the case of the will congress have was incompetent or was unduly influenced she was coming before a probate court and simply saying look at the history then someone could have filed a petition and i suppose just for one that  what terrible consequences would've come to nothing you know how i could have been faced with an objection on the part of her siblings that she actually many passes the even though she would have a counter objection to them because obviously missed from obviously counsel for conny at that point in time felt that it was important to go ahead and file this petition she had a responsibility if she wanted to act as executor to mr randall in his argument apparently thinks that that he had a bad argument it's a sort of a sore spot he spends a great deal of time in his original br arguing that conny had sole possession of the will up to the day she filed her petition they didn't happen session so they couldn't have done anything so therefore they were justified not filing a petition until january while here apparently he thought that that was of si i think that hines petition which is a very practical suggestion which she with group voluntarily wish of as a matter of fact wasn't it is frankly his strongest argument in terms of when we're trying to interpret all of the language that in fact the filing of that titian was a commencement of receiving so you're willing to concede that i think if the i think if people whole big court conducted a year and determine that someone was not qualified or perhaps in the case of  the evidence or put it this is not a fear they can't get along it's a robot by reality it's a rogue documented fact with regard to the guardianship matters that preceded it they can get along with regard transpired since this but let's just assume that they really can't get you know there wasn't any in the trust in this case there was a i think majority rule  when there were the trustees are but that wasn't the case with regard to the exactly so they have to act as you want and so let's assume they were appointed and let's assume they can even get to the authority would have the authority to if you will the possess one of their position yes yes exactly so i your your honor i don't know if that answers your question but i guess as a practical matter i think it i think a probate court should have you but worry when you have a and stablished history like we have here ok of these people like i said a while ago not even  ok being given to the mother i think as a practical matter conny suggestion of the court in her petition was a practical suggestion and i think very candidly no way in the war would  again as much as appears that you had struck in the green is what i'm getting at that the petition would be withdrawn and that the four siblings would be pointed so i guess no contest clause petition well there was never any more my clearly outsized record here no as some don't answer it i think it's implicit in the record i'll answer it this way ok i was there that simply withdrew the petition of the four of you know the will was admitted before we were appointed the discussion we had was with mr randall outside of the presence of the court that and they agreed that all four likes it both agreed that all four would be appointed so i suppose or some sort of mutual agreement there but that they're not very doesn't have any have premed that  with that in some way be a waiver on their part their position that she is no longer entitle to be anything and will because she's removed herself completely outside of it by filing that petition wanting to be named individually so how could they agree then that she names one of the four which the staff has the i think your cause i'd be less than candid if i didn't tell your honor right that that the court didn't have any discretion those were the four people they didn't have to were not worried by by some agreement that was the law they stepped aside and the on as to the appointment because to do so if you recognise that in the appointment and you need to comply with that it is essentially meaningless well yes i know on that's what select one or both of these four is the executor leaving off changing the will supplant the role for you know back again for the reasons i just mentioned the court can't do because then it stand in recess until further call