The memorandum disposition filed July 7, 1999, is redesignated as an authored opinion by Judge Lay.

Robert and Darlene Pardee filed a Chapter 13 plan that expressly purported to discharge post-petition interest on a student loan debt that the Pardees owed to Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation ("Great Lakes"). Great Lakes did not object to the plan and it was later confirmed. Great Lakes did not appeal confirmation of the plan. After the Pardees received their Chapter 13 discharge, however, Great Lakes attempted to collect $6,095.92, the interest on the student loan debt that had accrued after the bankruptcy petition was filed. The Pardees filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to enforce the discharge of the interest and to enjoin Great Lakes from further attempts to collect the debt. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirmed the bankruptcy court's order enjoining Great Lakes from further debt collection activity. The BAP held (1) that the confirmed Chapter 13 plan was res judicata regarding the discharge provision contained in the plan even if the provision violated the Bankruptcy Code, and (2) that Great Lakes' failure to object to the plan or to appeal its confirmation constituted a waiver of its ability to challenge the provision or collect the interest. See Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. v. Pardee (In re Pardee), 218 B.R. 916, 925 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). Great Lakes appeals and we affirm.

Student loan debts are nondischargeable in Chapter 13 unless two exceptions set forth in the Bankruptcy Code apply. See 11 U.S.C. SS 523(a)(8), 1328(a)(2).2 The Code is silent, however,about whether post-petition interest on a nondischargeable student loan is also nondischargeable. The BAPheld that the post-petition interest is nondischargeable.3 We need not decide this issue,4 however, because we agree with the BAP's conclusion that Great Lakes' failure to object to the plan or to appeal the confirmation order "constitutes a waiver of its right to collaterally attack the confirmed plan postconfirmation on the basis that the plan contains a provision contrary to the Code." See In re Pardee, 218 B.R. at 922.

As the BAP recognized, while a creditor is generally not required to object to a plan that does not purport to pay post-petition interest because post-petition interest cannot be collected through the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. S 502(b)(2), the facts of this case are different. The Pardees' plan contained a provision that expressly purported to discharge the post-petition interest on their student loan debt and relieve them of liability for the post-petition interest.5 ThePardees placed language in their plan that, if confirmed, would clearly have a negative impact on Great Lakes' ability to collect post-petition interest. Great Lakes had notice of the plan and of this discharge provision, yet it failed to file an objection to the plan. Great Lakes clearly failed to take an active role in protecting its own interests. It now takes the position that the discharge provision contained in the Pardees' plan violated 11 U.S.C. SS 523(a)(8) and 1328(a)(2) because it purported to discharge student loan debt without addressing the two exceptions to the nondischargeability of student loan debt set forth in S 523(a)(8). However, Great Lakes should have raised this argument in the bankruptcy court by objecting to the plan prior to its confirmation, or by appealing the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the plan. It failed to do either.

The Tenth Circuit recently rejected a student loan creditor's post-confirmation attempt to challenge a discharge provision contained in a confirmed Chapter 13 plan. See Andersen v. UNIPAC-NEBHELP (In re Andersen), 179 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. June 7, 1999). In In re Andersen, the debtor's confirmed Chapter 13 plan included a provision which purported to discharge the balance of an unpaid student loan. See id. at 1255-57. The creditor failed to object to or appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation order. See id. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the debt was discharged by the creditor's failure to challenge the plan during the bankruptcy proceedings, along with the res judicata effect of the confirmed plan and strong policy favoring the finality of confirmation orders. See id. at 1259-60. The court stated,"[a] creditor cannot simply sit on its rights and expect that the bankruptcy court or trustee will assume the duty of protecting its interests." Id. at 1257-58. The court continued, "it is absolutely incumbent upon a creditor to take an active role in protecting its interests, and a creditor which fails to do so is in a poor position to later complain about an adverse result." Id. The court stated that "[a]lthough the provision at issue did not comply with the Code, it is now too late for [the creditor] to make the argument" that it failed to timely raise in the bankruptcy proceedings. See id. at 1258-59.

We agree with the Tenth Circuit. If a creditor fails to protect its interests by timely objecting to a plan or appealing the confirmation order, "it cannot later complain about a certain provision contained in a confirmed plan, even if such a provision is inconsistent with the Code." Id. at 1257-58. This court has recognized the finality of confirmation orders even if the confirmed bankruptcy plan contains illegal provisions. See Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 691 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed, it is binding on all parties and all questions that could have been raised pertaining to the plan are entitled to res judicata effect . . . . Since the plaintiffs never appealed the bankruptcy court's confirmation order, the order is a final judgment and plaintiffs cannot challenge the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over the subject matter.") (citations omitted); Lawrence Tractor Co. v. Gregory (In re Gregory), 705 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1983) (declining to consider the legality of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan because "[t]he order confirming the plan has become final. [The creditor's] failure to raise this objection at the confirmation hearing or to appeal from the order of confirmation should preclude its attack on the plan or any provision therein as illegal in a subsequent proceeding."); see also Ground Sys., Inc. v. Albert (In re Ground Sys., Inc.), 213 B.R. 1016, 1020 (BAP 9th Cir. 1997); In re Andersen, 179 F.3d at 1257-59; In re Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405, 1409-10 (3d Cir. 1989); Republic Supply Co. v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046, 1049-50 (5th Cir. 1987); In re Walker, 128 B.R. 465, 468 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1991). But see In re Escobedo, 28 F.3d 34, 35 (7th Cir. 1994) (confirmed plan that failed to comply with Bankruptcy Code's requirements was "nugatory"and not res judicata); Ridder v. Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. (In re Ridder), 171 B.R. 345 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1994) (holding that the student loan creditor did not waive its right to collect post-petition interest on student loan debt by failing to object to confirmation of Chap-ter 13 plan that denied post-petition interest).

We find no reason to depart from the well-settled policy that confirmation orders are final orders that are given preclusive effect. Regardless of whether the plan should have been confirmed with the discharge provision, the BAP was correct in holding that, "the Plan is res judicata as to all issues that could have or should have been litigated at the confirmation hearing." In re Pardee, 218 B.R. at 925. Thus, under the particular facts of this case, the well-settled policy recognizing the finality of confirmation orders along with Great Lakes' failure to protect its interests during the bankruptcy proceedings weigh in favor of affirmance.6

Accordingly, the judgment of the BAP is AFFIRMED.