In RE McGRAHAN, 459 B.R. 869

Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition in 2009 and proposed plan treating DHHS's $13,000 claim for unpaid child support as paid in full through the plan.
The First Amended Plan included a provision that DHHS would be decreased annually reflecting intercepts of the debtor's tax refunds.
Bankruptcy court confirmed the First Amended Plan in January 2010 and DHHS's claim was allowed.
After confirmation, DHHS intercepted two of the debtor's federal income tax refunds to satisfy the prepetition arrears without adjusting its claim.
The debtor moved in October 2010 to modify the plan to raise DHHS's allowed claim to reflect seized refunds and to remove the tax-refund interception provision; the court granted the modification.
DHHS opposed further modifications, and after a December 1, 2010 order denying reconsideration, the debtor filed an Amended Motion to Modify and a Second Modified Plan proposing a further reduction of DHHS's prepetition claim and silent treatment of tax intercepts; on April 22, 2011 the bankruptcy court granted the Amended Motion to Modify, holding DHHS could not continue intercepting refunds post-confirmation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Second Modified Plan expressly prohibited tax refund intercepts.	McGrahan argues silence on intercepts means no prohibition.	DHHS contends the plan’s silence does not negate its prepetition rights.	No explicit prohibition in Second Modified Plan; not binding.
Whether post-confirmation tax refund intercepts are prohibited by the confirmed plan.	Plan controls and may bar intercepts after confirmation.	Intercepts permitted under 362(b)(2)(F) unless plan expressly restricts them.	Intercepts may continue unless plan expressly restricts them; silence is insufficient to prohibit.
Whether the December 1st Order and law-of-the-case doctrine bind the outcome on intercepts.	December 1 Order resolves that nothing prohibits intercepts.	Law of the case prevents re-litigation of that issue.	December 1st Order is law of the case; it did not prohibit intercepts.
Whether the Second Modified Plan binds DHHS to a limitation on intercepts absent explicit language.	Binding requires explicit language; silence cannot bind.	Plan should control since confirmed under §1327(a).	Silence cannot be read as an implied prohibition; plan did not bind against intercepts.

In re Carvalho, 335 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (confirmation precludes actions inconsistent with plan terms; res judicata effect)
In re Storey, 392 B.R. 266 (6th Cir. BAP 2008) (plan confirmation binding on creditors; issues decided at confirmation)
In re Pifalo, 379 B.R. 1 (1st Cir. BAP 2007) (final orders not appealed can become law of the case)