entitled to relief from the stay under section 362(d)(1). 2. Section 862(d)(2) Colony also contends that it is entitled to relief from the stay under section 362(d)(2) because its collateral is not necessary for an effective reorganization. It argues that it is the only creditor of Mezz II and that a reorganization is not possible without its consent because Mezz II will have no accepting class of creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10). See also, In re Swedeland Dev. Group, Inc., 16 F.3d 552, 568 (3d Cir.1994) (finding that the secured creditor’s assertion that it would oppose any proposed plan by debtor was “reason alone” to find that an effective reorganization was not realistically possible); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Route 87 Bus. Park Assocs., 987 F.2d 154, 161 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re 6200 Ridge, Inc., 69 B.R. 837, 844
holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan holding in the instant case although creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay it failed to object or appeal from the confirmation order accordingly creditor is bound by the confirmation order holding that secured creditor was entitled to relief from the stay because the debtors proposed plan had no reasonable prospect of confirmation as a result of its improper classification scheme holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case