reaffirmation agreement — were coercive for purposes of § 362(a)(6). Even if these acts independently do not reach the “coercion threshold,” the threshold for each of those acts was clearly surpassed when coupled with the other actions taken by the Credit Union. And since the Credit Union acted unfairly in taking the two described actions, each constituted a violation of § 362(a)(6). IV. Injunctive Relief A request for an injunction must be made in an adversary proceeding. F.R.Bankr.P. 7001(7). Thus it was inappropriate for the Debtor to seek that relief in a contested matter such as this. However, when the parties try an issue without objection on procedural grounds, courts generally disregard the irregularity. See, e.g., Thurston v. United States, 810 F.2d 438, 443-44 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Turchio v. Den Norske Africa, 509 F.2d 101,
holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that to avoid an affirmative defense  a plaintiff must plead specifically matters of affirmative avoidance pursuant to rule 5508 holding that qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pled by the official who claims it holding that a civilrights plaintiff need not plead facts relevant to a qualified immunity defense in order to state a claim holding that the plaintiff waived an objection to the defendants failure to plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense