trust estate certain property to be allocated to the packer family a new release in violation of paragraph six point zero two and nine of that nine hundred eighty nine trust him could you be more specific when you squared with trustee to breach of the most specifically i'm referring to the settlement agreement which was entered into in the previous litigation first there was a motion brought by martha interviews came together to create this settlement agreement and the settlement agreement by its terms distributed one of the two million dollars to the defendants and distributed nothing to the there are it was a very complicated estate and they could have easily reached the presumption that a lot of the real estate deals and entanglements had to be straightened out before distributions could have been made they were g if the ruling of the previous court it is is void for not including indispensable parties then the finest ever way to come in any time thereafter and to use actually set aside w i am racing analysing argument yes so now you're raising the argument that the order that was entered that involved the settlement between the defendants and the trustee was a void order because of the indispensable nature of your client's well it's a collateral argument i'm not arguing directly as a reason for it for reversal or even what i'm arguing is that because of that creator construct a trust then was created on the funds which were received by the defendants in this case and the principles of creation of equitable trust including the equitable principles should allow recovery of those funds distribution from this trust and in putting themselves into that position they in effect have a fiduciary duty to all the beneficiaries to see that the beneficiaries all were treated according to the terms of the trust received by one point two five million dollars are several beneficiaries of a trust any beneficiary can maintain a suit against the trustee to force the duties of the trustee to him or to enjoying it work team redress for breach of the trust these duties to him it's a personal to go around even with the allocations which do the math there were seven hundred thousand dollars left at the time so i'm fine you didn't answer my question i'm sure you can because it was a question i thought it was so us thank you all as a matter of fact cindy hirsch received almost every dollar because she received four hundred twenty five thousand dollars which was practically the present of her portion of the annuity at the time she received it so sending her she got paid off and took off it's my argument that the defendants had an obligation from the very as parties in litigation concerning the trust unless the rights are etiquette million properly represented by the representatives who are part of this trust and clearly that was not the case here but whose responsibility they have an inherent obligation to bring along every other beneficiary of the trust unless he cannot defeat their own interest and they can living in their own interests in the litigation but they have to bring in the other beneficiaries of the trust received pursuant to that settlement was in fact monies under british control that she allegedly misappropriated from the trust no i don't think we knew that at the time that the complaint was file i believe i asked mr cochran's maybe i was hurting but i guess one of them it was mr heard me about what your position relative to the allocation of the wood is determined which mr heard him and said was based upon an exercise in merrick's is it your contention that the allocation was insufficient or is it your allegation that although the allocation was sufficient your clients never got the distribution that they were entitled to based upon that proper allocation it's both ok nobody ever a party to this truck commissions or the discussion regarding calculations i've run my own calculations and the math comes out a lot different for me it comes out as what is your ratio instead of seventy thirty where you think it should be well it would be approximately sixty to thirty eight yes if this earth why settle for thirty that she settle for eight percent less than what she was paid to i don't know that she settled for thirty i can tell you this that if you take the present value of that portion of the newly that was allocated to her fog here it comes out in just about four hundred twenty five why do you say president isn't it kind of like after the fact monday morning quarterbacking why would you be taking present money about the seas six years six years in to be endured so she got the equivalent of the full amount of her share so because she was paid earlier than your client she got the thirty percent yes and she was pretty earlier than provided under the terms of the trust agreement so as to be a twenty year ability she got paid out in fall after six years and subtle full amount that you would have collected with the and who would be well if you quote unquote you know took twenty years to get the lottery winnings if you took it up front it wouldn't be as much right so little would you explain what you meant when you said she gets full complete value she got four complete present value she didn't get the full amount she would have received over the course of twenty years while given  lottery winner would receive they take a cash mob stop in the beginning