the domestic-relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction applies. In concluding that the plaintiffs state identity-theft damages remedy in federal court “would modify the state court’s marital distribution, the Eighth Circuit relied on the statutorily required considerations that a divorce court must consider before dividing property and awarding alimony.” Id. (“These [identity-theft] remedies would essentially require that the federal court remove the label ‘marital debt’ and reallocate the debt division the sta trines, such as res judicata or collateral estoppel, may prevent federal plaintiffs from relitigating issues raised in a prior divorce proceeding, “but these are defenses rather than jurisdictional obstacles.” Jones v. Brennan, 465 F.3d 304, 305-06 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We therefore believe that the Eighth
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 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 probate exception does not apply where plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty seek in personam jurisdiction over defendants and do not seek to probate or annul a will holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case holding that breach of fiduciary claim falls outside probate exception