this Court’s Discharge Order of September k, 2002”) and • “the State Court’s Orders recorded February 10, 2009 and June 22, 2009, claiming the Net Equity assets remaining at the end of the bankruptcy case, specifically the [Great Northern Land Co.] stock, [Canyon Quarry Co.] stock, and 6 burial lots, constitute a pre-petition claim, and are void ab ini-tio in these regards, as those assets are not marital property, but rather, are Flanders’ post-petition, after-acquired assets acquired from the Net Equity of the Bankruptcy Estate.” R. at 824-25 (footnote & boldface omitted). These requests trigger the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, for they depend on a finding that the state court erred and entail relief from the erroneous orders. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Ebel v. Ebel (In re Ebel), 139 Fed.Appx. 26
holding that south carolinas declaratory judgment act is not a vehicle for the nullification of such instruments nor is it a substitute or alternate method of contesting the validity of wills holding that a claim for a declaratory judgment which sought nullification of a probate courts orders is precisely the type of claim encompassed by the rookerfeldman doctrine holding that a suit for compensatory and punitive damages against various probate judges for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of property during the probate proceedings was not barred by the probate exception or rookerfeldman abstention doctrine holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that the determination by the probate court in the summary proceeding provided for by section 211516 revised code that assets should be included in an estate makes the question of title res judicata as between all parties to the proceeding but the judgment of the probate court may be attacked in a subsequent action by other interested persons who were not parties to the proceeding in probate court