rationale here the met magistrate judge baker who sees this number one is a question of contract interpretation and number two says just is a sensible way of interpreting this contract which does refusing to compensate attorneys for the time they recently spent in establishing their rightful claim to a fee so he interprets the contract to encompass you know full recovery of the dead and full recovery of the expenses contract isn't saying it comes out of the blue you know that the parties she agreed to this when she signed the contract in support he cites if the case  oh well the indiana law says that when you have contractual finish it's deemed it's limited to the terms of the contract and our position is that the contract does not  and it's also been disputed in this case that no one and you know law committed one to collect any attorney fees so the issue before the court is whether the agreement created in that that allowed no one to attempt to collect  that determination is entitled to precludes of the sacked in federal court mr duff how do you respond to the counter argument with regard to the confusion here between race judicata and collateral stop tries to collect these fees on fees from your clients it's a complete defense but you're attempting to use rescue to cut authentically in the doctrine doesn't permit i would respectfully disagree judge under the r know the limits of the parties so that the indiana supreme court said in that case i quote where there has been a formal adjudication on the merits of the same issue between the same parties  properly read as permitting quote costs of the collection of such charges this robinson minutes that is exactly how it has to be read if it's not what are costs of collection limited to in the context of the agreement it has to be such charges the term charges appears four dollars times in the prior two paragraphs it is clear charges is referring to the cost of medical students instance the agreement actual charges will be determined based on the services i received and they did more or less than the estimate and the the plaintiff's opponent's position is that the contract only provides for the recovery of the costs of case there is no dispute that ms robinson signed the contract in this case and the fact contract provides that if i do not pay charges when do i agree to pay costs of collection including attorney's fees and there is no dispute on the had that case proceeded all the way to final judgment on her appeal to the superior court i was going to not have a question about that appeal why didn't met one solutions appear dismissed it and that's all that we have in the record in this case but it's not a material point here because you know the the the dismissal as as noted is not dispositive indiana does not grant often save collector can never just miss a contested case because you would be gifting the other side an argument that the debt was never valid to begin with so in any collection action where there is a dispute between the debt collector and the consumer if the debt collector decides to action in much of the kind of case and indeed here this is a fight over something like seven hundred dollars and it's been going on for six years behind the record that that is that is absolutely correct your honor the best decision that we that we have found to support that is the actual levy and i apologize if i'm mispronouncing that at the lobby versus atlantic mortgage it appears in both parties briefing in that case that the court appeals no issue was actually litigated so certainly we think that that loop to use your word is closed and that this is going to have to be addressed on the merits quickly on the contract interpretation the  the fundamental problem with the argument as as we see it and we certainly think the district court was correct it is that all of the policy reasons behind having fees on fees and consumer protection litigation are in statutory it would apply to any and it's contract that the argument as i understand it is ok in a statutory thi shifting situation you would be entitled to fees on fees but that shouldn't be applied to indiana contract and we would submit that all of the policy reasons behind the shifting would be equally apply the indiana supreme court has been very clear that the idea of the shifting provisions and contracts is to make the party whole and let's look at the specific facts in this case here and robbins did not know whether she owed these debts and she initially contest of the lost sheep petition the court to do discovery which is her right to do under indiana small claims procedure in the court permitted it she served discovery and those discovery responses showed that the debts belonged to her children she had knowledge that she owed them and she paid the underlying balance and then she says but i don't know any of the attorney's fees that are incurred even though this has been actively the fields versus wilbur law firm decision that this court handed down i believe in two thousand and three or two thousand and four it's a decision that's been on the books for a decade now have and it is a decision that is directly controlled here claims and we would submit that here the authorization is clear when it says you are authorized to seek collection costs and attorney's fees if the authorization has to be the  legal arguments and it is applied piecemeal to language in a contract benefield versus wilbur law firm decision is incorrect and that reading is inconsistent with cision and we would certainly submit to the court that the fields decision should trump the analysis and submit it sixty nights you want to is not a statute that applies in piecemeal these attorneys fees were authorized by the agreements that one dollar sought to reduce and on liquidated claim to a judgment it did not make any false or misleading communications in attempting to do that even if it did the record is clear that ms robbins was not actually confuse and this is the very type of good faith dispute in state court litigation that is permitted to happen within the confines of the f t c p a and there is no violation regardless of the outcome whether it's a rule forty one dismissal or whether it's on the merits so much the court has any other questions i will yield the remainder