claim within a multiple claim or multiple party dispute, which is subsequently made final when all claims or claims against all parties are resolved. Further, the Objection Order would not have been an appropriate order for Rule 54(b) certification. The Tenth Circuit has held, in the context of a bankruptcy ease, that Rule 54(b) “may only be used to permit appeals from orders that finally resolve at least the discrete claim for which review is sought.” Spears, 26 F.3d at 1025 (citing Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 n. 1 (10th Cir.1991); Strey v. Hunt Int’l Resources Corp., 696 F.2d 87, 88 (10th Cir.1982)). The Objection Order did not finally resolve the discrete issue of the term of the Plan, because the Debtors could have modified the Plan term. See Simons, 908 F.2d at 645 (<HOLDING>). Since the Objection Order does not have
recognizing that order denying confirmation of a plan does not resolve a discrete issue holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed holding that payment does not moot a confirmation request 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 holding appealable order which explicitly denied confirmation vacated award and directed rehearing but stating that we do not imply the order would have been appealable absent the provision denying confirmation