The Debtor argues that the state court has no special knowledge of the facts relevant to the parties' intent because the Debtor's obligations were contained in a settlement agreement rather than ordered by the judge. SeeBattaglia v. Battaglia(In re Battaglia), 321 B.R. 67 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005) (where divorce decree is based on a settlement, bankruptcy court can hear the testimony and determine the parties' intent); In re Smith, 263 B.R. 910, 918 n.8 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001) (where obligation at issue arose from an agreement, the state court was in no better position than the bankruptcy court to determine the intent of the parties in creating the obligation).This argument and these cases would be persuasive here if the state court had not conducted any hearings involving interpretation of the MSA.