movable,” concurrence of the Mirannes' spouses would not have been required for the husbands to alienate whatever rights flowed from their ownership of the note and the mortgage securing it. See Nathan, 49 La. L.Rev. at 44. 50 . Meza. v. General Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1990); Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams, 897 F.2d 183, 188 (5th Cir.1990). 51 . We acknowledge that this first condition of claim preclusion cannot be satisfied with respect to the Browns, but we dispose of the jurisdictional wrinkle raised by this fact below. See infra PartE. 52 . 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a),(b). 53 . Southmark Properties v. Charles House Corp., 742 F.2d 862, 870 (5th Cir.1984); In re Heine, 141 B.R. 185, 187 (Bank.D.S.D.1992); see also Matter of Baudoin, 981 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). 54 . 28 U.S.C. § 157(a),(b)(2)(N); Heine, 141
holding that all core proceedings necessarily arise under title 11 or arise in a title 11 case recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11 recognizing court discretion in determining reasonable fee under rule 11 recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute