the cases that really have looked at it i agree that it's secure courts that have led the way on this but most of them seem to say for judgment like this one of the collateral attacks will be constitutional challenges you can't be just s defense of upset off the district court this is not an issue of recognition this is an issue of whether a counter claim can be the basis of america for its defense for setting aside mr smith filed his appearance shortly after our having misunderstood his deadline for pleading their motion to set aside the default was filed shortly thereafter as has mr had knowledge is in question before us whether you have a defense to recognition under the statute of the foreign judgment not what the us got it defense to the underlying claim judgment and that's that's statutorily crisscross i don't i don't see how you fit yourself within the statutory categories your honor i i don't i don't necessarily think that's the question that needs to be addressed here i believe the question before this court is whether there is a meritorious defense to set aside the default now if i  and so to the extent you don't want to look into have it just listed on that action for recognition i'm not sure you i'm not sure i understand why you don't think you have to fit one of the statutory grounds for non recognition could be because your honor and perhaps i'm not articulating myself clearly the issue here is we are not seeking  say because it's not liquidated operates to offset debts due between our country banks which action the kinetic action or the foreign action well within the confines of the federal rules of civil procedure we made argue the connecticut action the other after that seeking to be registered with the singaporean action which obviously does not follow the federal rules here we would argue that the counter claim is one under the federal rules and the recognition important to focus on the procedural history in the case which is not disputed here as your honest have correctly pointed out this is a case in which the so remedy that  the seeking is recognition under section fifty a thirty two dollars of the connecticut foreign money judgment recognition act to enforce or and recognize a proximately two hundred and thirty thousand dollars judgment against mr smith in favor of bionics rendered by the high court of singapore now mr smith the faulted in the connecticut record a recognition proceeding proposed answer in counterclaim we responded to the answering counter claim by saying that it's a novelty but nevertheless protected our interest and instead providing an answer to the counter cloning mr smith now appeals arguing that the district court ignored and didn't fully consider the counterclaim as an initial matter and as counsel for mr smith just acknowledged mr smith does not in any way challenge t of the singapore judgment or its proceedings rather his sole defense is based on a counter claim independent of the singapore proceedings now notwithstanding this dismiss efforts to confuse the issue specifically enumerated the exclusive grounds for non recognition of a foreign money judgment and neither several of nor counterclaim are included as in within those grounds the fan that points to no authority from connecticut or elsewhere holding that counterclaim is a defense to an action to enforce a foreign judgment conversely plaintiff in its brief at page eleven dollars twelve cents the where the judgment debtor sort to forestall the enforcement and recognition of a foreign judgment based on legs counterclaim and in both cases the courts held that counterclaim was not a valid basis for not immediately recognizing the foreign german now in its reply and again today during an argument defended attempts to confuse the issue by asserting that the issue here is whether and in an action to recognize a foreign award that it can assert a counterclaim in that regard defendant argues that the lawyer in other jurisdictions is mixed and goes on to work requests that this court asked the supreme court of connecticut to rule on such question however that is not the issue in the case while interesting from a legal perspective the issue it is irrelevant to the matter before the court this is not a case where the defendant tim filed an answering counter claim rather mr smith the fault did and the issue before the court is whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to set aside t foreign judgment and for the reasons i stated previously the answer to that is most decidedly no i mean it seems to me that i might have an easier to just say i'm dismissing you are counted claimant got no business being in this action  situation just asserts account a claim not not necessarily opposing recognition but just asserting account a claim and the courts are mixed as to whether they can do that in that context but that's not this context this context is merely a situation where you know do you have a defense to the recognition and in that case as you just heard counsel admit he has no defense the recognition and for that reason alone the court was correct the lower court was correct in not setting aside