the defendant he was the father of the plaintiffs in the trustee presented to the plaintiffs each of them on a separate occasions a deed whereby they transferred all of their interest in the trust to him individually property for the exclusive benefit of himself as outlined in the trial transcript he conducted businesses on the trust property including riding stables hate rides sawmill he lived he constructed a home on the trust the trust property for any reason whatsoever that he wished and that he did not impact any duties to the beneficiaries for that trust property when he approached the beneficiaries to transfer their interest to home and allow her to live there however he purchased it in both of their names and demanded that she read pay that amount to him as a lover in addition he stated in the trial transcript that he did not consider that consideration for her transfer i believe this case is a lot more complex than has been presented there are some basic outlines to this case however i don't see the statements of fact elements within the structure one was the income rights or discretionary distribution rights of the beneficiaries during the term of the truss most spendthrift tru for a term of years they would normally run for the life of an individual or a beneficiary so there was one aspect of the trust what spendthrift trusts are all set up for and that is the protection of the assets for the ultimate beneficiaries needs during the term of the trust no one can alienate no creditor can reach into the trust during the existence of the  to distribute income and or principle out of that trust during its term but there is a second element to this trust in illinois court have the knowledge of the second element in judge zappa acknowledge this and that is the remainder interest in this trust so you have the term of the trust in the inviolate in bio village of that trust and its assets during his term but then you have a clear right of individuals in a remainder interest in yes the illinois courts have struggled over the years and have come up with a definition of vested remainder versus contingent remainder in cro was a case that dealt strictly with bested remainders but clearly it acknowledged that the right of a remainder of mine did exist to alienate or transfer that remainder deal with contingent remainders and the ability knowledge by the courts for a holder of a contingent remainder to alienate or transfer of that interest so we're dealing with two different interests one during the term of the trust and the remainder interest is our position in the trial bound that that remainder interest once jennifer burn all jennifer carver and all was of a could be alienated and signed by the evidence clearly shows that on the day that she received that the sixty thousand dollars house that she was there it was placed in joint tenancy between herself and her father who was a trustee she signed that  the testimony goes even though mr carter the trustee and father it's not very sophisticated he responded as to i didn't receive consideration when you looked at the entire record in the trial court being the finder of fact i believe found that that conveyance of the house and turning over possession of that house two years before the terminations trust was consideration basically house that you've got to pay me for in the seven years since then the testimony goes then is in the record that no payments jennifer carter bernald says she made no payments to her father in the seven years to made an independent decision weigh the testimony of all the parties and all the witnesses that the value was in fact were full value of her interest jennifer's interest here was two years prior to the end of the terminations and she is receiving a house for which she made no pa there are all sorts of discrepancies and challenges to one appraisers dollar figures very task figures from the court and from counsel number one and this was an appraise secured by the plight number one the appraiser fixed roughly a five hundred thousand dollars valuation on the track all the residence and all the remaining property based on an assumption and incorrect assumption as determined by the order questioning that there was unlimited permanent access to the property which would give you access twenty four hours a day three hundred  sixty five days a year this property is adjacent to the river sangma river and floods and seventy percent of the ground is often times for extended periods of time underwater built a sawmill and other commercial building as they gather and the sixteen thousand dollars that the appraiser was the enhanced value of the property by virtue of both commercial improve the residential piece of property was appraised by the same appraiser in a divorce proceeding for over two hundred twenty thousand dollars thinking that he understood my question i mean asking about times and jennifer carver no continues she has never made a payment to that card there is no testimony in the record to reflect that at the time of the transfer jennifer had no funds and no place to live that's not in the trial transcript that i'm aware of there is no testimony that i can recall that i'm aware of that a similar status was there for john robert the trial court once again heard all the of the trial court made a determination that john roberts and jennifer received full and adequate separation for their transfer the appraiser made some interesting comments and i think it's important for the court to know when that in one thousand nine hundred eighty six when the property was funded into the trust it was not income producing property and when the appraiser went back out even though there are businesses the operated on there you made a determination that it's still not an income producing property the best highest use is for recreational purposes and that's not income produc interesting comment he did not value it there is no testimony within the record which the stablish is any proof of damage there is absolutely n every improvement that was placed on that property was courtesy of the fun's of card is not the funds of the beneficiary the trust itself prohibited any transfer of the real estate that was the corpus of the trucks the trust prohibited anymore each of that real estate the trustee maintain he and the and the real estate was never transferred out of that truck it's interesting to know the trustee had personally paid forty thousand dollars to his parents in order to acquire  this round before you put it into the trust you say he put the trust i thought his father transferred it that's now when you look at all the documentation i find that there was a separate purchase and sale agreement was legal title or equitable title at that point in time one nine hundred eighty six edward carter own that ground now it was missed i believe mistakenly it was drafted the trust w carter were the ones funding for setting up the trust but the actual funding came from edward hard it's an automatic conflict situation in in contemplating conflict from the standpoint that here you have never requested him their mother never requested support requirements from him and they never testified to the effect that they did not receive support from him no damages because i don't know how the trustee to use the trust property for his own benefit here you have carter who put roughly seventy thousand dollars into a house of his own money on this property he provided shelter it was a marital residen the only asset within that trust was the that he made improvements he put two hundred thousand dollars worth of residence on that property is that a picture attached to the realize it is it is an improvement and attach to the realist like he enhanced the value of the remaining property by over sixty thousand dollars of that group but he also provided a place of employment for his children were there on that property as john roberts there is absolutely no proof that has been offered that any profit whatsoever was generated by ed carter i there is absolutely no evidence of any economic loss trustees however it is extremely common for testate or worse for trusts outdoors to create a trust for beneficiaries until a certain date such as a twenty fifth birthday or a thirtieth birthday that is an extremely common ten the purpose of the spendthrift trust is to protect the beneficiaries more or less from themselves during that time period that means they cannot assign any interest in the trust whether then or in the future during the term of  the trust and i would say that has to be case because otherwise the beneficiaries would not have the protection trust if they could turn around and sell their trust interest at any time during the trust the one they would get almost no consideration for it because it's a future interest and this profits or income generated by the property we do not have that information because the trial court did not require the defendant to count for all of the trust activity during that time and that's one of the things we are still asking for is that complete the count activity of the property during the term of the trust and since it's terminations to regarding the sixty thousand dollars home supposedly being a consideration to jennifer carter it was originally regarding any gift or a long term rights on that property she was never given an entire interest in that profit as far as the defendant providing different things to the beneficiaries and in terms of the trust the stars shelter and employment he is their father he is required to watch provide a minimum level of support at least until the age of eighteen a moral obligation to provide for them swell subsidy that you provide a roof over their heads is hardly saying that his trustee provided any benefit to them from the transcriber as for his putting money into the property he chose to do that he knew the property was owned by the back now and say that in reality that's not how it's funded is not acceptable that's how it was funded and he accepted that at the time in for the next twenty years whether or not this was done is just a sham to try to protect the property from his creditors is