With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". federal claim is deemed ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state-court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Singleton v. Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio (In re Singleton), 230 B.R. 533, 537 (6th Cir. BAP 1999) (citations omitted). Thus, pursuant to Rooker-Feldman, federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) cannot review state court judgments for errors in construing federal law. Id. However, there appear to be several exceptions to the hard and fast Rooker-Feldman rule of federal-state comity. These exceptions generally come into play when the state proceedings are considered a legal nullity, and thus, are void ab initio. See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 438-40, 60 S.Ct. 343, 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (<HOLDING>); but see Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc., 881

A: holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order
B: holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void
C: holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio
D: holding that violations of the automatic stay are void and rejecting the reasoning of sikes
B.