TY - JOUR PY - 2011 TI - BANKRUPTCY, DIVORCE, AND THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE: A POTENTIAL MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE JF - Journal of Law and Family Studies; Vol 13 No 1 (2011) KW - N2 - Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} This Article asserts that the recent amendments to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code ("the Code") have eliminated many of the past reasons that bankruptcy courts had to review divorce decisions. Bankruptcy judges should invoke Rooker-Feldman and refuse to hear many marital-debt-dischargeability adversary actions. Under Rooker-Feldman , bankruptcy courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hold proceedings to determine the dischargeability of most marital debts. UR - https://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlfs/article/view/492