enumerated in the post-judgment order. Richard alternatively contends that with the exception of his child support obligation, the discharge in bankruptcy either entitles him to a full discharge of all court-ordered debts arising from the divorce judgment, or that the discharge exposes him to liability only to the extent that Suzan makes payments on the joint debts to the credit union. In a divorce action, we review a post-judgment order for an abuse of discretion or error of law. Brasier v. Preble, 2013 ME 109, ¶ 12, 82 A.3d 841. [¶ 9] As a preliminary matter, Richard’s preemption argument is not persuasive, because state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of certain debts. See, e.g., In re Walker, 427 B.R. 471, 478 n. 16 (8th Cir. BAP 2010) (<HOLDING>); of. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(b) (LEXIS through Pub.
holding that although the bankruptcy court is the preferred forum because of its greater expertise state courts have concurrent jurisdiction recognizing that except as to certain types of debts that are not relevant here state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide dischargeability which is most often raised as a defense to a state court lawsuit brought after the discharge has been entered recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code