interest by virtue of § 502(b)(2). The estate is not liable for post-petition interest and that portion of Defendant’s claim remains unpaid. Id. Bruning and its progeny have made clear that a debtor is personally liable for the unpaid post-petition interest if the underlying claim is not discharged. The fact that Defendant did not object to Debtor’s plan is inconsequential because Defendant could not have contested noninclusion of its claim for post-petition interest in Debtor’s plan. Compare Ridder v. Great Lakes Higher Education Corp., 171 B.R. 345, 347 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1994) (holder of claim of nondischargeable student loan had no reason to object to Chapter 13 plan because post-petition interest could not be included as part of claim) with In re Gregory, 705 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). I therefore conclude that Debtor remains
holding that an order confirming a chapter 13 plan is res judicata as to all justiciable issues which were or could have been decided at the confirmation hearing holding that creditor with notice of bankruptcy could have objected to confirmation of chapter 13 plan in order contest treatment of claim 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 plan properly vacated with respect to chapter 13 creditor who received actual notice of proceedings but did not receive adequate notice that court would value secured claim at the confirmation hearing recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order