debt. The cases Smith has cited do not alter this rule. Consequently, plaintiffs’ failure to file a complaint to determine dischargeability in bankruptcy court did not render the debt dischargeable. Initially, we note that, although the issues in this appeal are almost entirely ones of bankruptcy law, this court and the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction. Principally at issue is whether the discharge exception of section 523(a)(3)(B) allows plaintiffs’ suit to proceed in the face of Smith’s discharge. Whether state courts have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the bankruptcy courts to decide whether debts are excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(3)(B) has been in contention in the bankruptcy courts. Compare In re Padilla, 84 B.R. 194, 196-97 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1987) (<HOLDING>), with In re Strano, 248 B.R. 493, 501-03
holding that the decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the trial court holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the district court holding that the determination of public policy lies almost exclusively in the legislative domain and the decision of the general assembly in that regard will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of palpable error holding that jurisdiction to decide whether a debt belongs to one of the classes that would bring it within the scope of section 523a3b lies exclusively in the bankruptcy courts