house insured by allstate the decision that you need to make is that whether a supplemental proceeding to enforce a judgment against the house owner can be dismissed by a simple statement from allstate which is that the judgment debtor has no claim and that all state owes nor payments to the judgment debtor as the owner of the house on the basis of these simple statements your honour's whether you consider it an affidavit or not can end the supplemental proceeding be dismissed and what happened in this case is that  the supplemental proceeding was dismissed the district court said you need to proceed pursuant to section fourteen zero to see six which requires that the judgment creditor bring  invoices public records insurance policies and even your honor your honor is a partial payment that was made by allstate towards the repair of the of the of the house now by allstate making a partial payment and mind you they didn't dispute the partial payment therefore they're not contesting the claim in other words if you were to sue them and bring the cause of action of breach of contract there is no breach of contract they're saying well we may partial payments the issue in the supplemental proceeding to force the judgement is whether or not no state is holding proceeds of money that travelers insurance vs good to find this is in essence a distinct dispute that needs its own jurisdictional basis and i didn't see anywhere in your brief where you were actually travelers dealt with where there is where the judgment creditor had to bring a lawsuit a cause of action because the insurance company's insurance company is saying no we don't owe you don't supplemental proceeding to enforce the judgment under c three the basis of it says to compel the person holding assets the loss of the judgment debtor what i'm saying is that allstate is not contesting that they that there is a claim on like travelers where there was a there was there was a dispute of whether or not there was a claim another was a cause of action just sue all state in it and say allstate breached the contract makes no sense simply because they conceded that they made partial payments on the fire damaged by conceding that they made partial payments on the fire damage means that they are liable they accepted liability the only issue is was that a full payment or not and by allstate simply stepping in and saying oh well we paid made all the payments that's it in a you know in one simple statement jurisdiction you haven't given us any response to travelers which says no jurisdiction i'm here you are because it's a wrong decision it gives the insurance companies too much power this is a precedent you want to set the precedent where the insurance you've got an independent federal jurisdictional ground for your dispute with all states travelers seems to me frankly to be zero point says no and so you would have a remedy in state court as i said i mean a traveler is a neck case there was a cause of action in this case there is no cause of action in this case your honor the supplemental proceeding this is exactly what the purpose of it is for claim here's what we paid in answer to the motion for turnover order and then you and then there would be no dispute case would be closed but travelers does not comply lol do respect your honor i ask you to look carefully between well then what's the purpose for the federal rule procedure sixty nine and also the the proceeding under six under c three to enforce judgments you know i really strongly urged his court to look at this case carefully and not so much power to the insurance companies to simply say well we own no money and then dismiss what do you mean enforce that judgment you're not enforcing a judgment against alec were enforcing a judgment against the party that's a collection proceeding or some contract elements to it but it is being the funded so that's kind of the point here in terms of the jurisdictional issue that's before the court here which is really the prime issue before the court here there was a original underlying case there's been two prior actions against all state here in this district as well both of which have been dismissed and others a state court actually installs that again which are defending at this time rule sixty nine specifically is the enforcement or clever proceeding enforcement provision of the  assets which we did in actually affidavit form with that with the seven hundred forty six at the station at the end of it which all states specifically said we're not holding any bank accounts we don't have any funds mr alec and does not have any accounts with us and other option here which it does allow an independent adversarial action to be rushed through and just just so we're clear you know since i understand your position to be if we say no we the insurance company say no we have no assets that doesn't mean that that's correct or that's conclusive you just shift you from c three to see six where you need an independent jurisdictional basis absolutely correct judge and there are other collateral issues that can be brought in that see six ever serial corners of that claim that's why that that's why this is a completely independent action that's been brought in alt by the plaintiff in this case which takes us into travelers into the whole concept of so dramatic so the better distinction says it clearly is an independent action with distinct issues separate and apart from those in the underlying case which is a really a breach of contract case arising from a construction contract which also it was not a party that's why we get into the travelers issue in the usual subject matter enforcing a judgment is something that you should look into and i strongly urge you to reconsider your your thoughts thank you ok well thank you very much too