light of the absence of the automatic stay. 6. The following language is included in Debtors’ proposed plan and the form plan required in this District: Any creditor holding a claim secured by property which is removed from the protection of the automatic stay, whether by judicial action, voluntary surrender, or through operation of the plan, will receive no further distribution from the chapter 13 trustee, unless an itemized proof of claim for any deficiency is filed within a reasonable time after the removal of the property from the protection of the automatic stay. See SC LBR 3015-1, Exhibit A. 7. Debtors’ creditors did not object to confirmation. 8. Debtors argue that the lack of the automatic stay is not sufficient grounds to deny confirmation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A review a.2005) (<HOLDING>). Finally, regarding the plan provisions
recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order holding in a post reform act case where the automatic stay terminated pursuant to  362c3a but the debtor obtained confirmation that cjonfirmation thus bound creditor to its due under the plans terms and not according to its prepetition contractual expectanciesand any previouslyeffective termination of the stay as it had applied to creditor did not affect that 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 a request made within 180 days of a modified confirmation order  entered three months after the original confirmation order  but more than 180 days after the original confirmation order was timebarred