the Bankruptcy Code indicates that the existence of the automatic stay is not a prerequisite to the confirmation of a firm a plan in the absence of a stay, confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan may prevent a creditor, who obtained relief from the automatic stay prior to confirmation, from exercising state law rights after confirmation to the extent that the provisions of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan conflict with and/or replace the creditor’s pre-confirmation rights. See 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a) (“The provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and each creditor, whether or not the claim of such creditor is provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has objected to, has accepted, or has rejected the plan.”). See also, In re Kurtzahn, 342 B.R. 581, 585-87 (Bankr.D.Minn.2006) (<HOLDING>); In re Sullivan, 321 B.R. 306, 308
holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order 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 the automatic stay terminates as to the debtor personally and as to his nonestate property but that the stay persists as to property of the bankruptcy estate 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