on the agreement obligated them to make payments during the automatic stay in contravention of § 862. Ford’s response begins with the propdsition that a secured creditor has a right to solicit a reaffirmation agreement. See In re Duke, 79 F.3d at 45. The Pertusos do not disagree. Rather, they draw a distinction between soliciting a reaffirmation agreement and collecting payments under it. We believe, however, that a secured creditor’s acceptance of voluntary payments does not run afoul of the automatic stay as long as the payments have not been induced improperly. If “mere requests for payment are not barred absent coercion or harassment by the creditor,” Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v. American Sav. & Loan, 804 F.2d 1487, 1491 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 929, 998) (<HOLDING>). It is significant, we think, that the Burr
recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt recognizing that a secured creditor is not unjustly enriched by receiving collateral that has increased in value without expense to the second creditor recognizing that creditor may seize collateral absent reaffirmation recognizing need to balance interests of debt or and creditor in determining nature of protection to be afforded creditor