terms” as existed prepetition meant that the Credit Union would continue to apply the funds received by it pursuant to the automatic deduction to the outstanding balances on both the secured and unsecured loans. In defense of the Credit Union’s policy, it can be argued that a debtor who fails to respond to a creditor’s invitation to terminate automatic loan payments on a prepetition debt has established a willingness to repay such a debt. Because these postpetition payments are (by negative inference) voluntary in nature, the argument goes, they are expressly permitted by § 524(f), and the creditor is therefore not in violation of § 362(a). Arguments to that effect have been consistently rejected by the courts. See In re Hellums, 772 F.2d 379, 381-82 (7th Cir.1985) (collecting cases) (<HOLDING>). But since Heliums ruled that a creditor who
holding that creditors cannot allow postpetition funds to be automatically applied to a prepetition indebtedness absent some positive indication that debtors indeed intend to voluntarily assume their prepetition debts holding that provision in prepetition agreement which precluded sale of assets by debtor was not a bar to a sale under section 363 because prepetition agreements purporting to in terfere with a debtors rights under the bankruptcy code are not enforceable holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay holding that a prepetition equitable distribution right to equalization relief constitutes a discharged prepetition claim and distinguishing while agreeing with in re marriage of seligman 14 calapp4th 300 18 calrptr2d 209 214215 1993 wherein it was held that a prepetition equitable distribution right to in kind relief does not constitute a prepetition claim holding that debtors could not exempt under  522d1 proceeds from the prepetition sale of their home