With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the bankruptcy court’s 9/15/03 order denying confirmation of the plan was not final at the time it was issued “because the Debtors remained free to propose an alternate plan.” In re Bentley, 266 B.R. 229, 233 (B.A.P. 1st Cir.2001); see Bartee v. Tara Colony Homeowners Ass’n (In re Bartee), 212 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir.2000) (stating, “If the order was not intended to be final — for example, if the order addressed an issue that left the debtor able to file an amended plan ... appellate jurisdiction would be lacking.”). But even if the 9/15/03 order denying confirmation of the plan was not final at the time it was issued, the parties assert that the order became final after October 27, 2003, when the bankruptcy court entered its order dismissing the case. See In re Bentley, 266 B.R. at 234 (<HOLDING>). In In re Parque Forestal, Inc., this Court

A: holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case
B: holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed
C: recognizing that order denying confirmation of a plan does not resolve a discrete issue
D: holding that workers compensation awards remained property of the estate despite confirmation of the debtors plans where the confirmation orders specifically provided that property of the estate did not vest in the debtor until the completion of the plan
A.