### NOT FOR PU BLICA TION

U NIT E D ST A T E S BA NK RU PT CYA PPE L L A T E PA N E L

OF T HE NINT H CIRCU IT In re: DA VID A N D R EWC R O Wand R EN EE TO IN E TTE C R O W,

Deb to rs. DA VID A N D R EWC R O W ; R EN EE TO IN E TTE C R O W,

A p pellants,

v. EDW A RD JO HN MA N EY, C hapter 13 Trustee, A p pellee. BA P N o . A Z -18-1323-SFB 2:18-b k-04677-EPB

M E M O RA ND U M *

A rgued and Sub m itted o n January 30, 2020

at Pho enix, A rizo na Filed – Feb ruary 10, 2020 

# FIL ED
FEB 10 2020
SUSAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S. BKCY

. APP. PANEL O F T HE NI NT H CI RCUI T

*Thi s di sposi ti on i s not appr opr i ate for publi cati on. Although i t may be ci ted for whatev er per suasiv e v alue i t may hav e, seeFed. R. App. P. 32.1, i t has no pr ecedenti al v alue. See 9th Ci r . BAP Rule 8024-1.A ppeal fro m the U nited States Bankruptcy C o urt fo rthe Distric t o f A rizo na Ho no rab le Eddward P. Ballinger, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding

A ppearanc es: David A llegruc c i argued fo r appellants; R o ss Mum m e

argued fo r appellee.

Befo r e: SPRA K ER

, FA R IS, and BRA N D, Bankruptcy Judges.

INT ROD U CT I ON C hapter 13 1 deb to rs David Andrew C ro w and Renee To inette C ro w appeal fro ma stipulated o r der c o nfirm ing their c hapter 13 plan. The C ro w s
challenge the c o urt’s dec isio n to strike a fo o tno te they added to their pro po sed c o nfirm atio n o rder. Fo o tno te 2 to the o r der attem pted to
ac c o m plish two things. The C ro ws so u ght to : (1) preserve their argum ent that any sub sequent attem pt b y chapter 13 trustee Edward John Maney to inc rease their plan paym ents b y way o f a plan m o dific atio n c o nstituted invo luntary servitude in vio latio n o f the C o nstitutio n’s Thirteenth A m endm ent; and (2) challenge the requirem ent that they “assist the

1 Unless specifi ed other wi se, all chapterand secti on r efer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S

. C. §§ 101-1532, and all “Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder al Rules of Bankr uptcy Pr ocedur e. All “Local Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Local Bankr uptcy Rules forthe Di str i ct of Ar i zona. 2trustee” b y sub m itting to himtheir po s t-petitio n tax returns.

The Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent is no t ripe fo rreview. A s fo r the requirem ent to turn o ver their tax returns, the C ro w s failed to perfec t this issue fo r appeal. And even if they had pro perly raised this issue, their argum ent has no m erit. A c c o rdingly, we A FFIRM. FA CT S The C ro w s filed their vo luntary chapter 13 petitio n and pro po sed a plan o n the fo rmrequired b y the Lo c al Rules. The fo rmchapter 13 plan ado pted in A rizo na requires deb to rs to pro vide the trustee c o p ies o f their po st-petitio n inc o m e tax returns fo r the duratio n o f the c hapter 13 c ase. In respo nse to this pro visio n, the C ro ws added the fo llo wing language to their plan: “Disputed per In re R o m eo A Z -17-1215-BLK u and pursuant tofinal appeallab le [sic ] o rder fro mc ase 2-16-b k-12633.” Maney filed a respo nse to the plan rec o m m ending c o nfirm a tio n b ut subjec t to c ertain genericand spec ificc o nditio ns. One o f the generic
c o nditio ns to c o nfirm atio n stated: “The Deb to rs are required topro vide direc tly to the Trustee, within 30 days after their filing, c o pies o f their federal and state inc o m e tax returns fo r every year during the duratio n o f the C hapter 13 Plan. This requirem ent is to b e inc luded in any O r der C o nfirm ing.” Maney and the C ro ws sub m itted to the c o urt a stipulated o rder

3c o nfirm ing the C ro ws’ chapter 13 plan. The pro po sed o rder reiterated the

requirem ent that the C ro ws sub m it their po st-petitio n tax returns to Maney: “The Deb to r(s) shall pro vide to the Trustee c o p ies o f their federal and state inc o m e tax returns fo r po st-petitio n years 2018 - 2022 within 30 days o f filing them . The purpo se is to assist the Trustee in determ ining any
change in Deb to r(s)’ annual dispo sab le inc o m e.” Ho wever, the C ro ws added twofo o tno tes o nto the c o nfirm atio n o rder. The first indic ated that this pro visio n was sub

jec tto an appeal in an unrelated c a se. S ee R eicha rd v. Bro wn (In re R eicha rd) , BA P N o . A Z -18-1194 (A ppeal dism issed O c t . 24, 2018). The sec o nd fo o tno te c o ntained a reservatio n o f rights, and an
objec tio n, as fo llo ws: Petitio ner(s) expressly reserve the right to assert their Thirteenth A m endm ent privilege fro mthe U .S. C o nstitutio n against invo luntary servitude, sho uld the C hapter 13 Trustee attem pt to m o dify their plan unilaterally and inc rease their m o nthly plan paym ents. The Petitio ners assert that they have no t waived their C o nstitutio nal Right against invo luntary servitude b y vo luntarily filing their b ankruptcy petitio n. In re C lem ente, 409 B.R . 288, 293 (Bankr. D. N J 2009). Petitio ners further assert, a Chapter 13 Trustee dem anding deb to rs assist himin determ ining c hanges to their annual dispo sab le inc o m e, is b arred b y In re Anderso n , 21 F.3d 355, 358 (9th Cir. 1994). The b ankruptcy c o urt entered the stipulated o rder o n N o vemb er 16, 2018. Ho wever, the c o urt struc k the C r o ws’ sec o nd fo o tno te c o ntaining the

4reservatio n and the objec tio n.

The C ro w s tim ely appealed. JU RISD ICT ION The b ankruptcy c o urt had jurisdic tio n pursuant to28 U .S.C . §§ 1334 and 157(b )(2)(L). Subjec t to the ripeness discussio n set fo rth b elo w, we have jurisdic tio n under 28 U

. S.C

. § 158. ISSU E Did the b ankruptcy c o urt c o m m it reversib le erro r when it struc k fo o tno te 2 fro mthe parties’ stipulated pro po sed c o nfirm a tio n o rder? ST A ND A RD OF RE V I E W Mo st o f fo o tno te 2 was devo ted to the C ro ws’ Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent. Sinc e that argum ent in effec t challenges a po tential future plan
m o dific atio n m o tio n that Maney has no t ac tually m ade, the C r o w s’ Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent m ight no t yet b e ripe fo rappeal. Ripeness is a jurisdictio nal issue sub j ec t to de no vo review. Principa l Life Ins. Co . v. R o binso n , 394 F.3d 665, 669 (9th Cir. 2006). In the rem ainder o f fo o tno te 2, the C ro w s asserted that the requirem ent to sub m it their po st-petitio n tax returns was inc o nsistent with Anderso n , 21 F.3d at 358. The C ro ws’ argum ent b ased o n Anderso n raises questio ns regarding the c o nstruc tio n o f vario us statutes and R ules, which we review de no vo . de laS a lle v. U.S . Ba nk , N
. A. (In re de laS a lle) , 461 B.R
. 593, 601 (9th C ir. BA P 2011).

5D ISCU SSION

The C ro w s’ appeal fo c uses o n fo o tno te 2 o f the pro po sed
c o nfirm atio n o rder, which the b ankruptcy c o urt struc k. The C ro ws assert that there was no justific a tio n fo r the b ankruptcy c o u rt to strike the fo o tno te. The C ro w s alternately argue that the b ankruptcy c o urt vio lated their due pro c ess rights b y striking the fo o tno te witho ut advanc e no tic e and a prio r o p p o rtunity to b e heard. Ho wever, there are jurisdic tio nal and pro c edural im pedim ents to o ur appellate review. A . T he Crows ’ Challeng e T o Plan M odific ation Is Not Ripe For A ppeal. Mo st o f the stric ken fo o tno t e pertains to the C r o ws’ attem pt to “reserve” their argum ent that m o dific atio n o f the deb to r s’ chapter 13 plan to inc rease plan paym ents wo uld c o nstitute invo luntary servitude in vio latio n o f the Thirteenth A m endm ent o f the C o nstitutio n. But no plan
m o dific atio n has b een so ught. The C ro ws’ Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent do es no t present a justic iab le c a se o r c o ntro versy within the
sc o pe o f A rtic le III o f the C o nstitutio n b ec ause the dispute is no t ripe fo r adjudic atio n. Unless the m atter is ripe, we lac k jurisdic tio n to c o nsider it. Principa l Life Ins. Co . , 394 F.3d at 669; S o uthern Pa c. Tra nsp. Co . v. C ity o f Lo s Angeles , 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir. 1990). In R o m eo v. Ma ney (In re R o m eo ) , BA P N o . A Z -17-1215-BLK u, 2018 WL 1463850, at *5 (9th Cir. BA PMar. 23, 2018), we held that a similar

6Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent was no t ripe fo rappeal. In R o m eo, we

po inted o ut that the chapter 13 trustee had no t so ught to m o dify the deb to r ’ s chapter 13 plan and m ight never do so, even tho ugh the trustee
so ught future tax returns todeterm ine whether the c o nfirm ed plan sho uld b e m o dified. Id. W e explained that, under these c irc um stanc es, any dec isio n b y this panel o n the Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent wo uld b e adviso ry b ec a use the questio n was still hypo thetic a l. Id. W e further explained: In m easuring whether the litigant has asserted an injury that is real and c o nc rete rather than spec ulative and hypo thetic al, the ripeness inquiry m erges alm o st c o m pletely with standing. A s a prudential m a t ter, we will no t c o nsider a c laimto b e ripe fo r judic ial reso lutio n if it rests upo n c o ntingent future events that m ay no t o c c ur as antic ipated, o r indeed m ay no t o c c ur at all . . . . The prudential c o nsideratio ns o f ripeness are am plified where c o nstitutio nal issues are c o nc erned. Id. (quo ting S c o tt v. Pa s a denaUnified S ch. D ist. , 306 F.3d 646, 662 (9th Cir. 2002)). Exac tly as in R o m eo, the C r o ws’ Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent
rem ains hypo thetic al at c o nfirm atio n. Maney m ight never seek to m o dify the C ro ws’ chapter 13 plan. Until the c hapter 13 trustee do es so, the
c o nstitutio nal questio n is no t ripe. W e, therefo re, lac k jurisdic t io n. B. T he Crows W ere Not Harm ed When T he Court Struc k T heir Res erv a tion Of T h eir T hirteenth A m endm ent A rg um ent. The C ro w s adm it that their Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent is no t
7ripe. N o netheless, they c laimthat the striking o f the fo o tno te sho uld b e

reversed b ec ause they were entitled to preserve the argum ent. A c c o rding to the C ro ws, ab sent such preservatio n, the b inding effec t o f their
c o nfirm ed chapter 13 plan and the ac c o m panying c o nfirm atio n o rder
m ight prec lude themfro mlater raising their Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent. They further c laimthat the c o urt’s striking o f fo o tno te 2 witho ut first c o nduc ting a hearing vio lated their due pro c ess rights. The C ro w s’ c o nc ern o ver the po t ential prec lusive effec t o f the
c o nfirm ed plan is unfo unded. Tho ugh the plan term s are b inding o n the C ro ws and their c redito rs as spec ified in § 1327(a), neither the plan no r the
c o nfirm atio n o rder addressed the c o nditio ns under which a plan
m o dific atio n c o uld o c c ur. Tothe c o ntrary, § 1327(a) and the princ iples o f res judic ata dono t lim it the parties’ rights to seek plan m o dific atio n. Ma x R eco very, Inc. v. Tha n (In re Tha n) , 215 B.R . 430, 435 (9th C ir. BA P 1997). Instead, the pro p r iety o f a pro po sed plan m o dific atio n is go verned b y § 1329. Id. In sho rt, the deletio n o f the C ro w s’ reservatio n o f rights did no t harmthem

. Bec ause the C ro ws did no t need to preserve their Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent, their due pro c ess c laim fails. The N inth C irc uit
ro utinely rejec t s due pro c ess c laim s when the rec o rd estab lishes that the alleged ab senc e o f due pro c ess did no t harmthe appellant. S ee, e.g. , R o sso n v. F itzgera ld (In re R o s so n) , 545 F.3d 764, 776–77 (9th Cir. 2008); C i ty Equities

8Ana heim, Ltd. v. Linco ln Plaz a D e v. Co . (In re C ity Equities Ana heim, Ltd.) , 22

F.3d 954, 959 (9th C ir. 1994). C. T he Crows Failed to Perfec t For A p peal T h eir Challeng e T o T heir Plan. The C ro w s’ advanc e o nly o ne o ther argum ent. They c o ntend that the deleted fo o tno te challenged the m andato ry pro visio n o f Maney’s
c o nfirm atio n o rder “requiring [the C ro ws] to assist [Maney] in determ ining
changes to their annual dispo sab le inc o m e.” A plt. O p n. Br. at p. 9. 2 A c c o rding to the C r o ws, this requirem ent is at o dds with the N inth C irc uit’s ho lding in Anderso n v. S a tterlee (In re Anderso n) , 21 F.3d 355, 358 (9th C ir. 1994). The o nly tim e the C r o ws raised A nderso n in the b ankruptcy c o u rt was as part o f their fo o tno te 2 o f the pro po sed stipulated c o nfirm atio n o rder. Ho wever, the pro po sed o rder, with which the C ro ws agreed, spec ific ally required the ac tio ns the C r o ws c o ntended were c o ntrary to Anderso n - pro visio n o f future tax returns tothe trustee during the pendenc y o f their plan. The C ro ws never pro perly o ppo sed the fo rmplan, the c o nfirm atio n
o rder, o r the requirem ents c o nc erning their po st-petitio n tax returns. A rizo na’s fo rmplan requires chapter 13 deb to rs to pro vide their po st2 Pur suant to Local Rule 2084-13(b), the Cr ows wer e r equi r ed to use Maney’s chapter 13 confi r mati on or der, whi ch included the pr ov i si on r equi r ing the Cr ows to submi t to Maney thei r post-peti ti on state and feder al income tax r etur ns fi led wi th the taxi ng author i ti es dur ing the pendency of the case. 9petitio n tax returns tothe chapter 13 trustee while the c ase is pending. The

C ro ws were required toutilize the lo c al fo rmplan pursuant to Lo c al Rule 2084-4(a). 3 They used the lo c al fo rm, b ut in the sec tio n fo rdeb to rs to list unfiled tax returns the C ro ws wro te “Disputed per In re R o m eo A Z -17- 1215 BLK

u and pursuant tofinal appealab le o rder fro m2-16-b k-12633.” If the C ro ws wanted todeviate fro mthe language o f the fo r mplan, they c o uld have pro po sed a no n-c o nfo rm ing o r no nstandard plan pro visio n to state that they wo uld no t b e pro viding the trustee with po stpetitio n tax returns. S ee In re R eicha rd, C ase N o . 2:16-BK-12633-BMW , 2018 W L 3323870, at *1 (Bankr. D. Ar iz. July 5, 2018). In turn, Maney then c o uld have o ppo sed the varying pro visio n b y filing an adverse plan
rec o m m endatio n, an objec tio n to c o nfirm atio n, o r b o th. S e e id. ; see a l so Lo c al Rule 2084-10(a), (b ). 4 The C ro ws did disc lo se a no nstandard pro visio n in

3 Local Rule 2084-4(a) pr ov i des: “Local For m 2084-4 (Chapter 13 Plan) must be used forall or i gi nal, amended, ormodi fi ed plans. All secti ons of the plan must be completed, or i f

not appli cable mar ked wi th N/A or NONE. The tr eatment of all known secur ed or pr i or i ty cr edi tor s must be di sclosed in the plan. Var yi ng pr ov i s i ons must be speci fi c and not inconsi stent wi th the Code, FRBP or Local Rules.”

4 Local Rule 2084-10(a) and (b) pr ov i de: (a) Trustee Recommendation/Objection. The tr ustee wi l l fi le a r ecommendati on / obj ecti on wi thin twenty-ei ght (28) days after the last date set for cr edi tor obj ecti ons to a plan. (b) Debtor Compliance or Dismissal . Wi thin thi r ty (30) days after the tr u stee fi l es the r ecommendati on/obj ecti on, the debtor must either (continued...) 10their plan, tho ugh it had no thing to do with the ob ligatio n to pro vide

future tax returns. Their statem ent o f “dispute” as topro viding the trustee with their po st-petitio n tax returns, ho wever, did no tc o m ply with the requirem ents fo r no nstandard chapter 13 plan pro visio ns set fo rth in Rules 3015(c ) and 3015.1(e). These rules suggest that nonc o m pliant no nstandard plan pro visio ns sho uld b e treated as vo id and ineffec tive. C f. In re Pa rkm a n , 589 B.R . 567, 578–79 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2018) (exam ining sc o pe o f perm issib le no nstandard pro visio ns fo r chapter 13 plans). The C ro w s had a sec o nd o ppo rtunity to plac e at issue the po stpetito n tax return requirem ent. When Maney inc luded within his plan
rec o m m endatio n a genericpro visio n reiterating the plan’s po st-petitio n tax return requirem ent, the C ro ws c o uld have filed an objec t io n and so ught a hearing date fro mthe c o urt pursuant toLo c a l Rule 2084-10(b ). But they did
no t do so . Instead, they sub m itted to the c o urt a pro po sed stipulated
c o nfirm atio n o rder that spec ific ally required pro d uc tio n o f the po st4 (...continued) comply with the trustee’s requests or file an objection and obtain a hearing date . The Cour t may summar i ly ov er r ule any obj ecti on that fai ls to i denti f y an i ssue orother i m pedi m ent to plan confi r mati on. A r equest for addi ti onal ti me to r espond does not consti tute an obj ecti on. If the debtor does not ti mely comply, the tr ustee may fi l e and ser v e a noti ce of intent to lodge a for m of or der di smi ssin g the case, wi th a copy of the or d er attached. Ten (10) calendardays after ser v ing the noti ce, the tr ustee may lodge an or der di smi ssing the case wi thout fur ther noti ce or hear ing. (Emphasi s added.) 11petitio n tax returns, b ut alsoc o ntained the fo o tno te the b ankruptcy c o urt

eventually struc k purpo rting to “preserve” their Thirteenth A m endm ent issue and to“assert” that the c o nfirm atio n o rder was at o d d s with Anderso n , supra . A t b o t to m, the C ro ws c o uld no t challenge the tax return requirem ent fo r the first tim e b ased o n a fo o tno te in a stipulated o rder c o nfirm ing a plan they pro po sed that required such ac t io ns. They have no t identified any prac tic e, pro c edure, Ru le, o rLo c a l Rule, that perm itted them to preserve a dispute while alsoob taining c o nfirm atio n pursuant to an o rder that spec ific ally required themto pro vide their future tax returns tothe trustee. N o r have they persuaded us that the b ankruptcy c o urt was ob liged to
c o nsider the fo o tno te as an objec t io n to c o nfirm atio n given this pro c edural po sture. D . T he Confirm ed Plan IsNot Contrary to A nde rs on . Even if we were to c o nsider whether the b ankruptcy c o u rt erred b y striking the fo o tno te c o nc erning the applic atio n o f Anderso n , we find the C ro ws’ argum ent to b e witho ut m erit. In Anderso n , the chapter 13 trustee
objec ted to the deb to rs’ pro po sed plan b ec ause the deb to rs refused tosign a “Best Effo rts C ertific atio n” as required b y the trustee. If signed, the C ertific atio n wo uld have b o und the deb to rs to pay to the trustee all o f their
a ctua l dispo s ab le inc o m e, as o ppo sed to their p ro jected d ispo s ab le inc o m e as required b y § 1325(b )(1)(B). 21 F.3d at 356-57. Mo rever, the trustee wo uld

12then b e ab le to auto m atic ally adjust their plan paym ents witho ut further

o rder o f the c o urt. Id . A t the c o nfirm atio n hearing, the trustee argued that the c o urt c o uld no t c o nfirm the deb to rs’ plan unless the deb to rs signed the C ertific atio n and pledged all o f their ac tual dispo sab le inc o m e fo r distrib utio n to their c r edito rs. Id. at 357. The b ankruptcy c o urt agreed with the trustee and denied c o nfirm atio n. Id. O n appeal to the distric t c o urt, the deb to r s asserted that they were o nly required to c o m m it their projec ted – and no t their ac tual – dispo s ab le inc o m e to their plan. Id. But the distric t
c o u rt agreed with the trustee and affirm ed the b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder. Id. The N inth C irc uit reversed. Id. at 359. The N inth C irc uit held that the effec t o f the C ertific atio n was inc o nsistent with the plain language o f § 1325(b )(1)(B), whic h o nly required that the deb to rs c o m m it their pro jec ted dispo sab le inc o m e to their plan at c o nfirm atio n. Id. at 357. Mo reo ver, the N inth C irc uit reaso ned that the C ertific atio n am o unted to an im perm issib le grant o f unilateral autho rity to the trustee to adjust the deb to r s ’ plan paym ents in c o ntraventio n o f the C o de’s plan m o dific atio n pro visio ns set fo rth in § 1329. Id. at 358. The C ro w s m isapprehend the im po rt o f Anderso n . There, the
challenged C ertific atio n was used “as a means o f vesting the Trustee with the autho rity to unilaterally adjust the Anderso ns’ paym ents witho ut a
c o u rt o rder.” Id. This c o ntravened the statuto ry requirem ents fo r
m o dific atio n. Anderso n did no t ab so lve c hapter 13 deb to rs fro mpro viding

13additio nal financ ial info rm atio n to trustees during their plan term s. Indeed,

§ 521(a)(3) generally requires that every deb to r “c o o perate with the trustee
as nec essary to enab le the trustee to perfo rmthe trustee's duties under this title.” Mo reo ver, upo n request deb to r s are required tofile with the c o urt
c o p ies o f each federal tax return fo r each tax year ending while the c ase is pending. § 521(f)(1). A nd chapter 13 deb to rs, alsoupo n request, are required after c o nfirm atio n to file annually “a statem ent under penalty o f perjury, o f the inc o m e and expenditures o f the deb to rduring the tax year
o f the deb to r m o st rec ently c o nc luded b efo re such statem ent is filed under this paragraph, and o f the m o nthly inc o m e o f the deb to r, that sho ws ho w inc o m e, expenditures, and m o nthly inc o m e are c alculated.” § 521(f)(4)(B). These requirem ents are designed to fac ilitate a chapter 13 trustee’s ab ility to m o nito r a deb to r’s po stc o nfirm atio n financ ial c o nditio n fo r purpo ses o f (am o ng o ther things) evaluating the need fo r po t ential plan
m o dific atio ns under §1329(a) – fo r either inc reases o rdec r eases in plan paym ents. W ith respec t to the repo rting requirem ents im p o sed under §§ 521(f) - (g), we have previo usly no ted that: The ob vio u s purpo se o f this self-repo rting o b ligatio n is to pro vide info rm atio n needed b y a trustee o r ho lder o f an allo wed unsecured c laimin o rder to dec ide whether to pro po s e ho stile § 1329 plan m o dific atio ns. This po wer o f the trustee and o f c redito rs ho lding allo w ed unsecured c laim s to request that a c o nfirm ed plan b e m o dified

14b y inc reasing paym ents in o rder to c apture m aterial inc reases

in net inc o m e that o c c u r during the life o f the plan is an im po rtant feature o f chapter 13. S ee 11 U .S.C . § 1329(a)(1). The additio n in 2005 o f po st-petitio n repo rting requirem ents at §§ 521(f) and (g) o perates to b o lster the effic acy o f § 1329 m o dific atio ns. F ridley v. F

o rsythe (In re Fridley) , 380 B.R . 538, 544 (9th C ir. BA P 2007); see
a lso R o m eo, 2018 WL 1463850, at *4 (c o llec t ing c ases). Ab so lutely no thing in Anderso n c o nc erns chapter 13 deb to rs’
ob ligatio n to pro vide tax returns to the chapter 13 trustee during the pendenc y o f their c o nfirm ed plan. A c c o rdingly, even assum ing that the C ro ws’ argum ents b ased o n Anderso n were pro p erly raised, they lac ked
m erit, and the striking o f fo o tno te 2 did no t c o nstitute reversib le erro r. In sum, the C ro ws’ challenge to the c o nfirm atio n o rder b ased o n Anderso n no t o nly lac ks sub stantive m erit b u t also was never pro perly presented to the b ankruptcy c o urt. Meanwhile, the C ro ws’ o nly o ther argum ent set fo rth in their o pening b rief – their Thirteenth A m endm ent argum ent – is no t ripe fo r appeal. Thus, none o f the C ro ws’ argum ents o n appeal justify reversal. CONCL U SION Fo r the reaso ns set fo rth ab o ve, we A FFIRM the b ankruptcy c o urt’s
c o nfirm atio n o rder.

15