Coleman

MEMORANDUM *

Chapter 11 debtor Rose Marie Coleman (“Debtor”) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of her motion to compel abandonment of two parcels of property under 11 U.S.C. § 554 (b). The relevant facts are known to the parties, and we therefore will not repeat them here. Because we agree with the BAP that the Bankruptcy Court properly concluded that the res judicata effect of an earlier-argued Confirmed Plan of Reorganization (“Plan”) precluded Coleman from seeking to compel the abandonment, we affirm.

In the bankruptcy setting, the principle of res judicata prevents a party from later raising issues that could have been raised during the confirmation of a plan of reorganization. In re Heritage Hotel Partnership, 160 B.R. 374, 377 (9th Cir.B.AP. 1993) (“[confirmation of a plan of reorganization constitutes a final judgment in bankruptcy proceedings,” and “[l]ike final judgments, confirmed plans of reorganization are binding on all parties, and issues that could have been raised pertaining to such plans are barred by res judicata”). It is undisputed that the Trustee and the Debtor were parties to both the confirmation and…