court has already ‘deem[ed] just after considering’ the conduct at issue here.” (quoting Mo.Rev.Stat. § 452.330.1) (alterations in original)). When a court distributes marital property, it does so in accordance with the parties’ “rights and obligations [that] aris[e] from [their] marital status,” — i.e., in accordance with state family law — and not the law of torts or contracts. McLaughlin, 193 F.3d at 414 (emphasis added). Although the distribution of marital property under state law may require that courts consider the spouses’ conduct — conduct that may or may not constitute tortious conduct — that does not affect the federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction. Stated simply, state law does not determine the scope of our jurisdiction. See Marshall, 547 U.S. at 314, 126 S.Ct. 1735 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in situations like Wallace, other
holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case 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 a probate court lacked jurisdiction over a proceeding to declare heirship because a court empowered with probate jurisdiction may only exercise its probate jurisdiction over matters incident to an estate when a probate proceeding related to such matters is already pending in that court emphasis added quoting bailey v cherokee cty appraisal dist 862 sw2d 581 585 tex 1993 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 breach of fiduciary claim falls outside probate exception