chirac would you know we do have a rd l member justice holdridge is not able to be here in the on the them this morning he will be listening to the arguments revolving those those were created in summer two thousand and twelve grace that passed away shortly after the may of two thousand and thirteen the action that we have brought on behalf of the miners as well as jamie of both plaintiffs was seeking an accounting for the descendants trusts we have obviously filed as feel for several different reasons but i'm going to take the opportunity to spend most of my time talking about the court's rulings on the motion for summary judgment i think the issues with involved in discovery and pleadings for the most part speak for themselves ultimately if the trial or believe that the defendants this is me the plaintiffs had not submitted enough evidence to support summary judgment then it should have denied that motion and not the court considered things or at least we believe they considered things that should not against been considered one of the things that has been suggested by the senate in the briefs is that there was a box did not we eventually got some and they showed raised concerns which in which led to the filing the suit subsequent accountings as we've set forth in or if we do not believe will fully adequate do not show complete there are there are some some minor issues with the accountings early early on but the biggest thing which as we sit here today although we have some legal fee is in  cannot go above and beyond one of the things that occurred during several years ago was mr ad decided to change the children's health insurance ultimately we were able to get that corrected but in doing so he demonstrated not only is lack of understanding of what he can and can't do but  decisions about what insurance the children should have health insurance at the time that he did that the children were covered under cobra insurance and we had requested that he assist us through the trust to pay the amounts for cobra and then he decided to change insurance without our you didn't have your mission he would have needed to make a decision because of that you did need to make it a decision that was in the best interest of the children didn't know what their medical conditions were or what their primary doctors were or what treatment they not correct your honor what we requested is that he pay the copra he actually had the documents i personally was there and handed him documents several months before that in fact for a period of time he was paying the cobra insurance what had an expiration date that was several months out we can see it asked him to continue to if the copra we were in the process of getting new insurance so we would have no longer needed it but there was a period of time we continue to need that and he made i'm trying to find out is what is it you're using as the measuring stick for what's permit well he decisions on what the insurance a child should have  not left to somebody that is a trustee over certain funds it's a that's a decision read for the parents or guardian those are medical decisions of what is necessary for individual and he is not their guardian is not their parents he's got no other than being a trustee over certain funds you have no legal authority or rights to make those  decisions the next issue that we discover during the initial accounting quite frankly is is the one that i think is the  the most time spending about without notifying anyone mr x entered into a loan where he loans the and did it without notifying anybody those cases stand for the proposition that when he trustee is making a loan he's going to at least notify the beneficiaries or consult with somebody so there's any objections or issues that they can be raised ready in this case defendant never advised insult or notify the minors or their parents of the law that we didn't learn about law until several months after the transaction transpired the reason that ends up becoming an issue is that long ultimate was not in the child's of the children's best interest at the time mr was wearing player defendant has taken the position that the there was interest made while there was a record speaks for themselves with the accountings as far as what they were earning before him if he did it for the simple fact that the loan documentation was done in such a way that it could have been a lot worse if it one it had not been repaid back and quite frankly the should never have been issued because a stamp a standard of a work of the day will which is which is basically what average people do is the lower standard it has a higher standard basic propositions here is i don't p r the question is not just did the circuit court commit any error which were not conceded but did the error prejudice a party and that has not in cannot be show the reasons for that are id to go back and look at the complaint itself as to what was requested and this applies to both the  the request was that mark at cock be ordered to account for all transactions made on behalf of the respective trusts as you've seen and this not only had mark provided accountings as they went along arm but judge anderson a guess in an abundance of caution entered an order reiterating that had to supply  and that's what the judge review when he went over those and issued his ruling that played us have all accounting documents and information to which they are entitled either voluntarily delivered or produced through the discovery process there was no material question of fact on that because in fact the thing that are missing as to the accounting for the miners trust that would make them inadequate in his opinion were legal bills for two thousand and seventeen which he acknowledged did not exist the trust it paid no money for attorney fees i'm a terrible bill or i hadn't built so there was nothing there so that is a judicial admission  not only the parties attorney but by the party itself about a concrete fact within that party's knowledge and and our supreme court has said in a state of rennick once made a judicial admission conclusively binds the party to the statement made and the party cannot later contradict or explain the statement so they were given the things in real time it here's what's interestingly pointed out in there and sixteen they were sent the accounting for two thousand and fifteen only comment they made was it if this is when it was disclosed about the loan and that the load have been paid back they said we want that money to go not into the break directions account which they specified at the start of the us but into the investment accounts that was it that was it we did another accounting  and eighteen he started raising things so this is not a case about issues being arising in real time and being dealt with it in fact we had produced any talks about oh there were documents that were not part of the record they were because we had with each accounting it said there are there were things like prospectus all the stuff you get from all these different accounts for the funds and everything were made available to him and he admitted he never what get it in this is in his deposition i believe i got sufficient documents in the documents attach those particular correspondence that being two of the the last two accounting so when the judge ruled that  which they are entitled they did and there was no question of material fact about that all these other issues he's raising about the accounting you know talk about parts of things that are not part of the record he keeps talking about in accuracies when i raised that in my response that it wasn't put anywhere he referred us back to other documents facts and other documents to to admit that simply said there inaccuracy he hasn't it does not supply anything so the trial judge reviewed the accounting team there were proper the nd part of the lawsuit was that and so to reiterate on that it was a very narrow issue raised by the played account for all transactions made on behalf of the respect other things as to what he had done and the thing that the judge recognized is that there were no damages and in order to have a cause of action for breach of produce eery duty you have to have four components the last three are damages and damages proximately caused by the action were no damages he talks about some attorney fees they were never brought up in real time and we pointed out the only thing in the record indicates eight hundred and seventy five dollars which if and the trusts of the miners and mr ed koc were represented by two separate attorneys at the time to avoid any potential issues another attorney was retained to represent in the parties in this matter no conflict has been raised no nothing so the so we come to it i could go through all the things that we did in the briefs listing what was reasonable and why he did what he did and all the nitpicking and one of the things i want to raise about this the question rate was raised before about discretion and mr chirac a trade to argue in his briefs that this was not a discretionary trust the trustee had known he had to do whatever mr schreck said that trust in the will says in the meantime the trustee may use for his benefit so much of the income in principle as a trustee determines to be required that's discretionary for the benefit support education an initially some things were used because mr schreck it sent a letter saying he didn't have a job they had no savings in refusing to use minors trust funds because it turned out and it was testified to by mr shrek's wife that at the time they made these additional requests he was now making one hundred thousand dollars a year that's it see three thousand three hundred and seventy three d and head personally bought the house they lived at that's a thirty dollars to fifty one so the trustee had merely responded and said hey because you've been bleeding money out of the trust with all these attorney fees please send me a profit and financial statement that shows you can't support the kids they never did there's nothing unreasonable about that as to count three that was another one that was very simple and straightforward and that and the two descendants trusts again over our objections because we thought judge andersen was granting them the relief they asked for and count three and we've shown f about the request they affirmative defenses they didn't answer even without those we went on that because we showed why they were not a title to accountings on these trusts but nonetheless judge anders all was accounted for regarding the descendants trusts his answer to a question about do you have everything for a complete accounting was quote some of the documentation we received isn't everything that i think should be ag and he said in fact we've removed one count because now we've got the documentation that we were seeking in the accounting for the descendants trusts that said are eighty two dollars so what did judge in or some do judge andersen entered an order simply and based on no question of material fact that and they just shuffled my cards here a nd i'm sorry platers are not entitled to any further documents and information beyond what they already have count one they got what they asked for they got an accounting of all transactions count three they got an accounting of all transactions no material question of fact i know i'm mark ed in terms of any breach of fiduciary duty the judge found after going through all of the reams and reams of this and everything that there had been no damages and what have your auditors observed asking the question that what was it that said he could not what is the measuring stick the measuring stick mr schreck couldn't answer it's by which in the trust document and the law which mr ed koc testified he was familiar with and it attempted to follow the trust document you mean the well you got i'm sorry the trust portion of the well there was one paragraph in there's some case that says a trustee has to has to consult with the beneficiaries of the trust i miss that name i'm not familiar with that i don't know if that was even put in the graves  and about the insurance issue i put in the record the letter from mr chirac that says i don't have a job we don't have savings we don't have this it is your fiduciary obligation to provide for the support of the kids my client said ok and we showed in the record my client through his attorney at the time came back to mr shrek and said all right i'm going to get them blue cross blue shield insurance which it checked out and found would cover everything and if i was everything and if i didn't the trust would pay for the balance no response from mr sure there was a follow up to him sang that was sent to his employer x employer at the time former employer that we're going to do this so in summary they got everything they wanted my client didn't do anything ron the judge had a chance to observe both m not only in court but also under a microscope with everything that was done about mr ed koc and determined there was no basis for summary judgment in favor of the defendant i'm sorry if they were of the plaintiff but in did not have an opportunity to go through all of the arguments but i want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the things that counsel just said although there may be some technical issues as far as one is concerned i was at the crux  council do for example the initial county was eight thousand dollars to do something that they had claimed was very simple and then subsequent accountings were substantially less but they were still one thousand dollars more things the usual and its costs well i thought it you other types of things that are similar to that for my clients and with the documents it was presented initially because of the the format which they did it would not have taken it i think any buddy with customer really look at that and say that was too much the other issue that's your personal opinion are you me lying on anything other than your personal opinion i'm relying my quite frankly common sense just quite by the actual documents they provided us there there's no way that would have been reasonable as far as that they also they found fail to obtain the balance of the retainer at least based on the documents that we've been provided as we pointed out in the record in addition during the course of this litigation there's three different counts one of those counts as nothing to do with the miners trusts it's regarding the defendant's trusts and mr act cocky has been defending himself for those allegations with the miners trust funds that is not easy for the miners trust it is for a different trust should not have been used in the miners trust funds to defend that aspect that should have been split have been other costs because mr attic obviously didn't understand some of the things that he had set up specifically with the bright futures direction they were going to deposit a large entire amount from the loans in that amount would then they had put that additional money in there they wouldn't ten percent penalty for anything that was not used for education and there would've been substantial fanny's concerning the amounts that we're talking about fifty thousand dollars plus interest over over several years and then the last thing i want to mention is count three the court may have indicated that we've got some documentation at one point when i was going to dismiss that i had it done and titian things have changed over time and we don't have that  continuing obligations in the brief speak for themselves as to why we're in titles that both one is a trustee for jimmy as well as for the minors because there are beneficiaries and if he were not beneficiaries you have a question you either because much of what mr shrek just sent was not rebuttal it was d new could i possibly have one minute just to point out to the court where those things are in the breeze place do you have any objection yes you may have one minute thank you out or so in terms of the all these costs and everything else he's referred to we've gone through the the in our reply i'm sorry in our how he's brave and set for it how all of those are not true and as grounds for that the review of the judge's denial of removing a trustee is under abuse of discretion there is no information anything to show the judge anderson abused his discretion in this matter after carefully reviewing all these matters quite frankly the only damage the trusts have been the attorney fees have been had to it be expended because of mr strax actions and i would simply ask the court to end this now and this issue about continuing duty that's not what he asked for the miners if he wants to bring that up we've been doing an accounting every year and our position is still they weren't title to it on the farm the judge found no material questions of fact on the complaint whether plaid or what mr struck wanted to play thank you thank you ok we will take the matter under a not we will consult with justice holdridge and will issue a written decision as quickly as possible while the court will stand in recess until one