This matter is before the Court on Motions by defendants Jerry Hall, Dean Hall and Cora Hall for Jury Trial and Assignment of Proper Venue to District Court. The defendants are appearing in this matter pro se, and while the Motions are couched in terms of venue, this Court will treat them as motions for abstention. The plaintiff has responded to the Motions, and this matter has been submitted for decision pursuant to an Order of Submission entered herein on September 24, 1998. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1334(b); the plaintiff has alleged that it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '157(b)(2)(E),(F), and (H).

The plaintiff filed his Chapter 11 petition in this Court on January 24, 1997, and a Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on June 15, 1998. The Complaint herein was filed on July 23, 1998. It seeks to recover certain sums from the defendants Jerry and Dean Hall, the plaintiff=s stepsons; Cora Hall, Jerry Hall=s wife; and the Estate of Ruth Hall Creech (Athe Estate@). Ruth Hall Creech is the plaintiff=s deceased wife. Jerry and Dean Hall were co-executors of the Estate until their removal in 1996, and Cora Hall was its former receiver.

The plaintiff and the defendants have for several years been embroiled in controversy over the disposition of certain properties owned by the plaintiff and his wife as tenants in common at the time of her death in 1993. As set out in the plaintiff=s Complaint, Ruth Hall Creech=s will left nothing to her husband, and the residue of her estate was left to her sons Jerry and Dean Hall. The plaintiff renounced the will and exercised his option to take against it. He is a co-owner of these properties with Jerry and Dean Hall, their ownership being subject to his spousal interest. The Estate is the subject of a probate action in the Boyd District Court. It is currently unrepresented.

The Complaint filed herein, except for Count VII, seeks sums that the plaintiff maintains were either improperly disbursed from the Estate or which are due and owing to him from the Estate. Count VII alleges that the defendants have failed to properly administer the Estate. Each act or failure to act occurred pre-petition. The Motions for Jury Trial and Assignment of Proper Venue to District Court were filed on August 17, 1998. The Motions appear to ask this Court to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, based on the question of whether venue is proper in this Court. There is no question that venue is proper in this Court. 28 U.S.C. '1409(a) states Aa proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 may be commenced in the district court in which such case is pending.@ The defendants have obviously confused venue and jurisdiction, and their Motions are being treated as requests that this Court permissively abstain from hearing this matter.

This Court believes that this action is amenable to permissive abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1334(c)(1) which provides:

In deciding whether to choose to abstain from hearing a matter in accordance with '1334(c)(1), courts have developed a number of factors to consider. These include

It seems obvious that the adversary proceeding referred to in KRS 24A.120(2) is the kind set out in KRS 394.240. In fact Kentucky courts have ruled that Athe district court=s jurisdiction over probate matters continues until such time as a suit is filed in circuit court under a statute authorizing such filing.@ Mullins v. First American Bank, Ky.App., 781 S.W.2d 527 (1989), at 529. The Boyd District Court is therefore the court which should hear this matter. The plaintiff=s concerns about timely adjudication speak to the way the defendants have conducted themselves during the course of this controversy, whether here or in state court. The plaintiff will have to deal with that no matter what court he is in.