See In re Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405, 1413 (3d Cir.1989) (secured creditor's failure to object to confirmation leaves the creditor bound by the provisions of the confirmed plan with respect to its rights as a secured claimant under § 1325(a)(5)); In re Arkell, 165 B.R. 432, 434 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1994) (creditor’s claim that "the extent of its security interest was improperly limited by the confirmation order had to be litigated before confirmation”). 11 . In any event, the res judicata effect of § 1327(a) prohibits the IRS from extracting payments for penalties and interest not provided for under the confirmed Plan and prohibits the IRS from mandating payment of unsecured claims at a higher level than that set out in the Plan. See In re Habtemichael, 190 B.R. 871, 874 (Bankr. W.D.Mo.1996)
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 recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order holding that a district court is entitled to give more weight to the seriousness of the offense than to other factors 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 secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan