Opinion ID: 1709406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether it is incumbent upon this court to determine the scope of bankruptcy stipulation authorizing edwards's suit.

Text: ¶ 55. After Edwards entered Greenwood Health in December 1994, but before Edwards filed his original complaint on December 7, 2001, and before he died on February 16, 2002, Mariner filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (January 18, 2000). After discussion, Edwards's counsel and Mariner entered into a stipulation on March 12, 2002, on behalf of Edwards and a number of other plaintiffs under which the plaintiffs could bring legal action, either pre-petition or post-petition, despite the automatic stay imposed on such actions by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court ratified the stipulation in a Confirmation Order on April 3, 2002. ¶ 56. The stipulation held that legal action could be brought by Charles E. Edwards, by and through Nevonnia Turner as Conservatrix of the Use and Benefit of Charles E. Edwards. Edwards amended the complaint on November 4, 2002, to name as the real party The Estate of Charles E. Edwards, by and through Nevonnia Turner, as administratrix of the Estate of Charles E. Edwards, for the use and benefit of the estate of Charles E. Edwards, Deceased, and the wrongful death beneficiaries of Charles E. Edwards, deceased. In its Answer and Defenses to the Amended Complaint, Mariner asserted bankruptcy as a defense, arguing that Edwards's Estate was not named in the stipulation and was therefore barred from bringing suit. Mariner also filed a motion in limine, requesting that the trial court enforce the bankruptcy stipulation. The trial court denied Mariner's motion. ¶ 57. While the courts of this state have jurisdiction to determine whether a pending action is stayed by a ruling of the bankruptcy court, we recognize that state courts should consider deferring close questions involving the applicability of exceptions to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b) to the bankruptcy court. Overbey v. Murray, 569 So.2d 303, 308 (Miss.1990). In the present case, the bankruptcy stipulation was negotiated in and authorized by the bankruptcy court. Questions regarding the scope of the stipulation and the possibility of recovery under the plan are ultimately matters more properly considered by the bankruptcy court. We therefore decline to interpret the bankruptcy stipulation and leave this determination to the bankruptcy court.