is void ab initio. Id. at 325. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed a bankruptcy court finding regarding collateral estoppel effect of the judgment entered in violation of the stay. Id. Contrary to Defendant’s characterization, the state court did not enter judgment against him (the debtor in bankruptcy) and, therefore, its judgment was not void as a violation of the automatic stay. Thus, the references to the Vierkant decision are simply off the mark. Finally, we note that the bankruptcy court correctly gave preclusive effect to the state court’s determination as to ownership of the assets because a contrary decision by the bankruptcy court would “wholly undermine” the state court’s ruling. See Dodson v. Univ. of Arkansas for Med. Scis., 601 F.3d 750, 755 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion The bankruptcy court did not err
holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine forecloses federal jurisdiction when a decision in favor of a federal litigant would wholly undermine the state courts ruling holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar holding that a state court judgment that modifies a discharge in bankruptcy is void ab initio and the rookerfeldman doctrine would not bar federal court jurisdiction holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine is broad enough to bar all federal claims that were or should have been central to the state court decision