With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), 333 Fed.Appx. 822, 827 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“A final decree closing the case after the estate is fully administered does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce or interpret its own orders.” (quoting In re 350 Encinitas Invs., LLC, 313 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (9th Cir. 2009))). Even though the estate had been fully administered, the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction regarding the child support claims from the 2009 Order because it needed to enforce its previous order. Raul’s arguments that Texas law does not allow offset against child support obligations and that the obligations here lack mutuality also fail. Raul did not timely raise these arguments before the bankruptcy court. See Galaz I, 480 Fed.Appx. 790 at 792-94 (<HOLDING>); see also In re OCA, Inc., 552 F.3d 413, 424

A: holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal
B: holding that raul had waived his mutuality argument by failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court
C: holding that a defendant waived an argument under section 2  610b by failing to raise it in the trial court
D: holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief
B.