context: 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.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 552 F.3d 413, 424
citation_a.parenthetical: "Since this issue was not properly presented to the bankruptcy court, it cannot be raised now for the first time on appeal."
citation_a.sentence: See Galaz I, 480 Fed.Appx. 790 at 792-94 (holding that Raul had waived his mutuality argument by failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court); see also In re OCA, Inc., 552 F.3d 413, 424 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Since this issue was not properly presented to the bankruptcy court, it cannot be raised now for the first time on appeal.”)- Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in enjoining Raul from enforcing his 2009 Order in state court.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 480 Fed.Appx. 790, at 792-94
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that Raul had waived his mutuality argument by failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court
citation_b.sentence: See Galaz I, 480 Fed.Appx. 790 at 792-94 (holding that Raul had waived his mutuality argument by failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court); see also In re OCA, Inc., 552 F.3d 413, 424 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Since this issue was not properly presented to the bankruptcy court, it cannot be raised now for the first time on appeal.”)- Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in enjoining Raul from enforcing his 2009 Order in state court.