not on a substantive matter the question is whether law robinson had standing in the state of idaho to bring this action it's our position in this is a very simple straightforward looks like a four step process under idaho law we do death statute step one under idaho code section fifteen dash five dash three one one section one super wrongful death the season's heirs or person representatives can bring that action subsection to of that same section defines heirs for purposes of section one as those persons entitle to succeed to the property of the seat and pursuant to subsection twenty two intestate succession step four and final step should be under idaho code section fifteen dash to dash one hundred three law robinson is an heir because she falls under subsection c issue of the parents of the seat that statute provides that each the spouse of the deceased and is the first to take if none the children if if no spouse or children then the parents and if no parents spouse or children then to the issue of the parents which is who laura damasio robinson is where this train kind of went off the tracks i think was that in the march thirty one two thousand and seventeen order by judge lodge there was an extra element statute and it was a difficult one to address because there were those cases out that actually defined that issue i did look very closely at the neck never occurred and shies and whitley case that issue was not raised in any of those cases however whitley the fact pattern i think plies to us here because in that case the death occurred in idaho the defendant no way was and was sued for the negligent acts of the seed and  the seams wife brought a case in washington for wrongful death the defendants the season's mom brought a case in idaho the idaho court said they were they were going to consider the washington action or its subsequent trying in probate court in tennessee as having control over the mom and specifically held that because the death happened in idaho the idaho statutes apply the idaho statutes in that at that time gave the sole parents and wife fifty percent each of the estate and therefore they awarded half of that state amount the settlement of eleven thousand dollars to the mom i think that's what it is  here should be a very very straightforward action i know and down below we were very frustrated because there were two rulings here and actually it's the the march thirty first two thousand and seventeen ruling by judge a large said that it lowered the macho did not qualify under section a fifteen days five days three one one because she the property wasn't in idaho then we were left on the amended complaint to show that she was a dependent the court so that she  i agree with you that the case doesn't anywhere talk about incorporating this element but what you described as an element but the but fifteen dash one the real one does set up the jurisdiction limits at the probate court and it indicates that that state i do know that section no the section four of section code section fifteen dash one that's three zero one specifically identify survivorship and related the counts as something that the statute would also apply to is just what this is this is  under a as long as you're not appealing whether she was dependent upon the macho then the question is whether or not it's correct to superimpose the jurisdictional limit of the probate court and require property to be located because i think it is also uncontested dama that really means that the only way that arose what the action could be valid in idaho would be if either seating had property in idaho because but yeah doesn't the supreme court of idaho talk about that in in never saying that there is an intention to limit who can bring a wrongful death action and i don't have i think that's i think that's true you're honest with all wrongful death you know it's not it's not a constitutional right wrongful death and so each state has the ability to set whatever parameters they wish in this case i think the parameters are laid out very clearly in the sections that we've cited and if you look at actually section b i believe section of code section fifteen that's five s three one one outside of idaho and never saw this argument applied in the circumstance but it makes sense though to sometimes that the most obvious things is don't get litigated and if common sense dictates here that you have to read you know canons of statutory construction need to read the laws so that they're thank your honor may i please the court case in ross of the united states i think we can just go directly to the point which judge christine was asking my colleague about is whether the plaintiffs here would qualify as heirs under section five eleven two i think the case actually speaks very clearly on this question where it says that a party is qualified to take as an heir solely by virtue of their actually entitled to inherit under idaho's in testis the laws but that with that case right that was that was a case that came down again there was a competition between a parent and a child and at that point in time there was this rule that doesn't exist anymore about their surviving spouse right and the amount of the first fifty thousand dollars himself and whether the children could take correct they were never going to be able to take because of the fifty thousand dollars limit credit how were they heirs they weren't and that's would never occur held that's why i never could doesn't help you the it still stands for the proposition that if a party is not not entitled to an a portion of the dissidents the state the party does not qualify as an heir this ice case also speaks clearly on this question this is exactly the same as never in that it's interpreting the same statute you're correct your honor to find any case where th idaho supreme court has talked about property within the state or forgive me residency within the state the jurisdictional provisions for the public unfortunately no i believe you're referring to fifteen dosh one dutch three zero one yes  were not aware of any authority that speaks to the question of subsection two of that section it says specifically that it look the territorial application of the idaho probate code applies only to property of nonresidents right located within that state was that the government's position the what the district court did in his order was something that the united states government advocated and i think the answer is no but i truly want to verify that so i believe that the we had argued that the plaintiff failed to allege that the plane just had or that th dissidents had any property within the state of idaho and by virtue of not having property in the state of idaho they would not be eligible to take his errors to be completely candid i'm not familiar whether we cited fifteen desh one argument might have been different but because clearly on this question and it is true that ms robinson would be entitled under the idaho laws of a test to see to inherit some of the property were their property and i'd hope but there was no property in idaho and plain just make no allegation to that effect so because they were not heirs the whitley case speaks clearly that if there are no errors there is no wrongful death action and so unfortunately that is simply that the state of the case now plaintiff made several arguments that this would this rule would somehow in this rate section five dutch three eleven that is completely and correct if you look to section five deaths three eleven to be there are certain in relatives who are statutorily entitled in all dependent on the deceiving spouses children step children parents and other blood relatives are automatically entitled to bring a wrongful death action they need not show support or dependency of supporter services and this was amended in the  eighty s in response to wrongful death actions brought at that time such that these certain classes of relatives could always bring a wrongful death action but it's not my that the difficulty isn't really subpart part b because there's any question that robinson otherwise she's next in line difficulty is whether we're going to superimpose apply the jurisdictional restrictions whether the decision was required to own property in idaho right or be a resident of idaho so if a child were killed then there would be no wrongful death action the child's parents would be able to bring so so but just cutting to the chase the person who is next in line the last the surviving relative who sex in the line who's not listed in the to be in is not clearly but i understand that's your position it's never been before the idaho supreme court however it's seems clear from the decision cited for the parties that the court sided for the parties that if there is no a state and a party cannot avail itself of the idaho probably code for purposes of bringing a wrongful death action in response to justice christian's question earlier when we were asked if we could find any support or any court discussing the territorial applications question the one thing that we did find and we said in a footnote on a brief is the enry watch case twenty three third six seven six nine hundred forty four case in california where the court looking at that issue dealt with it by calling the cause of action itself the property which is kind of a legal fiction that they used in order to get around that that apparent case of joanna edge versus city of everett we will for your planning purposes we will take a five minute recess after after we hear that case