margaret knox and who is his name in this case is brought is now ninety nine years old she resides in an assisted living facility in ohio when she was seventy she did what many people who were teaching do and i'm getting them myself and that is to execute a durable power of attorney for a child an adult child and i said quotation of the time when the parent is not to be able to act on our own the power of attorney was granted to peter knox's a tax states that the reason it released the funds in december of two thousand and fifteen was because not peter compliant with their requirements so that's not it's not an issue of whether or not but it but that was before it became aware of what  said here if you do x y and z which was submitted a certification on an attorney letterhead but the power was no in effect and if you give the directions we will now release the funds and in there in to sir when i ask them why did you release the funds in twenty fifteen they said because knox comply with our policy so we don't have to wonder now we'll worry or question or argue whether their policies were reasonable we eight you would assume from that description that was a memo of some sort or neutral communication or something saying we're now satisfied pay for sixty eight that they search but they cite to simply a page saying we release the funds it doesn't say anything about why they release the proportion between what appears to be the amount at stake and the time and attention by pushed on what is what is driving this case i mean it to me it's extraordinary i think they took the record but i can tell you i'm sorry  forms it would be extremely difficult for an elderly person that i didn't have any confidence that my mother could understand this form she can understand a simple statement give me my money she could not understand a sixty page contract and he did not feel was appropriate for h about the paperwork with them it is the bank are open the account and it was only after opening the account they realized these concerns and they resorted to their internal fraud department they then called mr and pose certain questions tone presuming that there would be a constructive dialogue and the parties would get to the bottom of it and resolve the paperwork issue but at that point mr knox decided not to comply with van d my only qualification that when it moved it forward for i think it was between october thirtieth and november seventh two thousand and twelve it was under the understanding that it had been given instructions by someone with proper authority so it moved forward at that time period on that basis that there was proper dorothy so it was not as if it's at all a third of a matter for these eight days i'm going to do it anyway it was under the understanding that had been issued addressing our concerns so the situation as my brother attorney said apparently was charged with some real emotion from mr knox was vanguard was asking for its contractual rights it was just seeking  take steps to address it that is both are right under that i'm there are contracts and our obligation as a third party reacting to agents according to instructions on behalf of a principal but provided absolutely no evidence that anger had any motive that it any goal here other than to get to the bottom of what was happening with these instructions then there was always a problem with the nonsense by explaining its concerns it was in a market fund one of the things peter did was take it out of the market fund when they were when they go to reverse the transaction they put it back into a market fund now by by coincidence the market went up from two thousand and twelve upset with mr knox's tone and i'm not making defenses or for that but that's not a reason to hold that hold money for three years and finally one issue that we have not addressed yet but i would direct the court's attention on the