is a precondition for recovery based upon unjust enrichment.” Id. at 424. The defendants argue that Count VII fails to state a claim for three reasons. First, the defendants argue that, according to the complaint, an express contract covers the disputed subject matter. This argument fails. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)(2) authorizes a plaintiff to plead inconsistent theories in the alternative. Second, the defendants argue that the proceeds of a letter of credit are not property of the estate. This is true. But as discussed above, the estate has a recognized interest in the contractual and equitable claims of the Debtor. Pursuing a theory of unjust enrichment does not violate the independence principle any more than a breach of contract claim. See, e.g., Kaiser, 399 F.3d at 564 (<HOLDING>). Third, the defendants argue that the
holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate holding an unjust enrichment claim was property of the estate holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate