The debtor cites Montana case law for the premise that the bankruptcy court should give "significant weight" in favor of plan confirmation to a trustee's consent to confirmation. In re Bassett, 413 B.R. 778, 786 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2009); In re Rankin, No. 10-62340-13, 2011 WL 204764, at *5 (Bankr. D. Mont. Jan. 21, 2011); In re Launderville, No. 11-61117-13, 2011 WL 4900022, at *2 (Bankr. D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2011); In re Stampley, No. 12-60732-13, 2013 WL 492490, at *2 (Bankr. D. Mont. Feb. 8, 2013).None of these cases discuss the reasoning for granting significant weight to the trustee's consent, however, but merely state it as a proposition of law.
Seealso Blachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 909 (6th Cir. 2000) (notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. ยง 1334(e), "a bankruptcy court can share its jurisdiction with other courts."). Cf. In re Stampley, No. 12-60732-13, 2013 WL 492490, at *3 (Bankr. D. Mont. Feb. 8, 2013) (deeming it "appropriate under the domestic relations exception, and for purposes of comity with the state court and respect for state law, to abstain and defer to the state courts on appeal, and the court which entered the decree, for their determination of the merits of the [d]ebtor's appeal and any subsequent proceedings involving division of marital property[.]"). Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to divide community property or abstain is a different question.