or permit a substantive ruling by the Bankruptcy Court, and then waive that objection if the ruling is favorable but insist on it if unfavorable, and get a second bite at the apple.” In re Carter, 506 B.R. 83, 88 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2014); see also Ogier v. Johnson, 1:13-CV-01490-WSD, 2013 WL 6843476 at *6 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 27, 2013). In ruling, this Court explicitly declines to decide whether the Trustee’s claims fall in the gambit of Stem claims. Compare In re Gladstone, 513 B.R. 149, 160 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2014) ("[T]his Court is guided by 11th Circuit precedent that fraudulent transfer claims brought under 11 U.S.C. §§ 548 or 544 are core matters subject to entry of final orders and judgments in the bankruptcy court.”) with In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc., 702 F.3d 553, 565 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>) aff'd sub nom.Executive Benefits Ins. Agency
holding bankruptcy courts cannot enter final judgment on fraudulent transfer claims holding that bankruptcy judges may hear and enter final judgments in core proceedings holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1