was barred by res judi-cata, held that Although “[a] confirmed plan generally binds any creditor regardless of whether the creditor’s claim is impaired by the plan or whether the creditor accepted the plan,” In re Amigoni, 109 B.R. 341, 343 (Bankr.N.D.Ill., 1989), the same is not true of a creditor whose claim is nondischargeable. “The party to whom [a nondischargeable] debt is owed is entitled after confirmation to enforce his or her rights as they would exist outside of bankruptcy.” Id. at 345; see also Grynberg v. United States (In re Grynberg), 986 F.2d 367, 370 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 812, 114 S.Ct. 57, 126 L.Ed.2d 27 (1993); Goodnow v. Adelman (In re Adelman), 90 B.R. 1012, 1018 (Bankr.D.S.D.1988). But see In re Mercado, 124 B.R. 799, 801 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, “the confirmation of a plan of
holding that although the plan cannot discharge the debt  the claimant may otherwise subject the debt to the provisions of a confirmed plan holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that effect of bankruptcy discharge under arizona law is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debtor holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions