PRESIDING JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

Respondent, Walter S. Clifton, appeals from the trialcourt's judgment that a bank account containing only fundsreceived as Veterans' Administration disability benefits was notexempt from collection to pay a judgment for child support,maintenance, and attorney fees and court costs arising from adomestic relations cause of action. We affirm.

Respondent and petitioner, Dora A. Pope-Clifton, nowknown as Dora A. Pope-Grubb, were divorced in Champaign County in1989. Respondent was ordered to pay child support, which wasmodified in 1991, requiring respondent to pay $935 per month inchild support. On February 26, 1992, respondent was found to bein indirect civil contempt for failure to comply with the supportorder, and all other previous orders were reaffirmed.

In August 2000, after eight years of inactivity in thecase, petitioner filed petitions for review of child support andfor rule to show cause. At the hearing on August 16, 2000,respondent appeared by counsel, who stated respondent was unableto attend because he was undergoing treatment at the Veterans'Administration Hospital in Danville. On November 2, 2000, thetrial court found respondent's failure to pay child support waswillful and without any legal justification and held respondentin indirect civil contempt. The court entered judgment in theamount of $31,665.50 representing unpaid child support andmaintenance owed by respondent to petitioner and additionallyawarded $2,955.51 in attorney fees and court costs to be paid byrespondent.

On August 16, 2002, petitioner filed in the circuitcourt of Macon County a certified copy of the docket sheet of theChampaign County proceedings and a citation to discover assetsagainst Earthmover Credit Union (Earthmover), which is located inDecatur. Earthmover subsequently notified petitioner that it washolding $26,711.01 for respondent in an account at its bank. TheMacon County court froze the assets held at Earthmover. On March17, 2004, the court found the citation was a supplemental proceeding to collect a judgment for child support, maintenance, andattorney fees and court costs arising from a domestic relationscause of action. The court further found that the funds in theEarthmover account were not exempt under section 12-1001(g) ofthe Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Procedure Code) (735 ILCS5/12-1001(g) (West 2002)) and ordered Earthmover to turn over theaccount to petitioner. This appeal followed.

On appeal, respondent argues that (1) the Macon Countycourt did not have subject-matter jurisdiction, (2) theEarthmover account was exempt under the Civil Procedure Code, and(3) the Earthmover account was exempt under federal law. Weaffirm.

We first examine respondent's argument that the circuitcourt of Macon County did not have subject-matter jurisdiction inthe present case. Respondent argues that the procedures ofSupreme Court Rule 277 (134 Ill. 2d R. 277) were not followed inbringing supplemental proceedings against Earthmover in MaconCounty. Specifically, respondent alleges that petitioner did nothave leave of the court to bring multiple citations in thismatter, no transcript of the original judgment was filed, and thecitation ignored amounts already paid by respondent in satisfaction of the judgment. We find no merit in respondent's arguments.

Nothing in the record suggests that petitioner hadfiled a previous supplementary proceeding against Earthmover. Rule 277(a) only requires leave of the court if there have beenprior supplementary proceedings filed against a party. 134 Ill.2d R. 277(a). Although petitioner only filed the docket sheet inMacon County, it is apparently because there was no writtentranscript of the judgment to file. The docket sheet clearlyshows the entry of judgment against respondent and is adequate tomeet the requirements of Rule 277. See Bentley v. Glenn ShipleyEnterprises, Inc., 248 Ill. App. 3d 647, 651, 619 N.E.2d 816, 819(1993) (provisions of Rule 277 are to be liberally construed). Finally, even with the money from the Earthmover account and allamounts previously recovered by petitioner, the judgment againstrespondent has not been satisfied, so it is moot that petitionersought to recover the entire amount of the judgment in herproceedings against Earthmover. The circuit court of MaconCounty had jurisdiction to enter a judgment on the supplementaryproceedings.

Respondent next argues that because the funds in theEarthmover account were directly traceable to Veterans' Administration disability benefits, they are exempt from garnishmentunder Illinois law. Section 12-1001 of the Civil Procedure Codeprovides in relevant part as follows:

"The following personal property, owned by the debtor, is exempt from judgment, attach-ment, or distress for rent:

(g) The debtor's right to receive:

(1) a social security benefit, unemployment compensation, or public assistance benefit;

(2) a veteran's benefit;

(3) a disability, illness, or un-employment benefit; and

(4) alimony, support, or separate maintenance, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtorand any dependent of the debtor;

(h) The debtor's right to receive, or property that is traceable to:

(1)***[.]" 735 ILCS 5/12-1001(West 2002).

Respondent relies upon the court's reasoning in Internal MedicineAssociates of Decatur, S.C. v. Patterson, 244 Ill. App. 3d 704,613 N.E.2d 1 (1993), where the court held that funds traceable toreimbursement for foster-parenting services were exempt fromgarnishment. The reimbursement for foster-parenting services wasnot included as an exemption in section 12-1001, but aftercomparing the language in the Children and Family Services Act(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 23, par. 5005) exempting the reimbursement to the exemptions found in the Social Security Act (42U.S.C.