1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber 1328. Bankruptcy courts must make this undue hardship determination in an adversary pro- ceeding, see Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7001(6), which the party seeking the determination must initiate by serving a summons and complaint on his adversary, see Rules 7003, 7004, 7008. Respondent Espinosas plan proposed repaying the principal on his student loan debt and discharging the interest once the principal was repaid, but he did not initiate the required adversary proceeding. The student loan credi- tor, petitioner United, received notice of the plan from the Bank- ruptcy Court and did not object to the plan or to Espinosas failure to initiate the required proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the plan without holding such a proceeding or making a finding of undue hardship. Once Espinosa paid his student loan principal, the court discharged the interest. A few years later, the Department of Education sought to collect that interest. In response, Espinosa asked the court to enforce the confirmation order by directing the Department and United to cease any collection efforts. United op- posed the motion and filed a cross-motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), seeking to set aside as void the confirmation or- der because the plan provision authorizing discharge of Espinosas student loan interest was inconsistent with the Code and the Bank- ruptcy Rules, and because Uniteds due process rights were violated 2 UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. v. ESPINOSA Syllabus when Espinosa failed to serve it with the required summons and complaint. Rejecting those arguments, the Bankruptcy Court granted Espinosas motion in relevant part and denied the cross- motion. The District Court reversed, holding that United was denied due process when the confirmation order was issued without the re- quired service. The Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed. It concluded that by confirming Espinosas plan without first finding undue hard- ship in an adversary proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court at most committed a legal error that United might have successfully ap- pealed, but that such error was no basis for setting aside the order as void under Rule 60(b)(4). It also held that Espinosas failure to serve United was not a basis upon which to declare the judgment void be- cause United received actual notice of the plan and failed to object. Held: 1. The Bankruptcy Courts confirmation order is not void under Rule 60(b)(4). Pp. 614. (a) That order was a final judgment from which United did not appeal. Such finality ordinarily would “stand in the way of chal- lenging the orders enforceability,” Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bai- ley, 557 U. S. _, _. However, Rule 60(b)(4) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment that “is void,” but only in the rare in- stance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of ju- risdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard. Uniteds alleged error falls in neither category. Conceding that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enter the confirmation order, United contends that the judgment is void because United did not receive adequate notice of Espinosas proposed discharge. Espinosas failure to serve the sum- mons and complaint as required by the Bankruptcy Rules deprived United of a right granted by a procedural rule. United could have timely objected to this deprivation and appealed from an adverse rul- ing on its objection. But this deprivation did not amount to a viola- tion of due process, which requires notice “reasonably calculated, un- der all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections,” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank it does not mean that a bankruptcy courts failure to make the finding renders its subsequent confirmation order void for Rule 60(b)(4) purposes. Although the Bankruptcy Courts failure to find undue hardship was a legal error, the confirmation order is en- forceable and binding on United because it had actual notice of the error and failed to object or timely appeal. Pp. 1014. 2. The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that bankruptcy courts must confirm a plan proposing the discharge of a student loan debt without an undue hardship determination in an adversary proceeding unless the creditor timely raises a specific objection. A Chapter 13 plan pro- posing such a discharge without the required determination violates 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(8). Failure to comply