Debtor to reaffirm his unsecured loan as a condition for acceding to reaffirmation of the secured loan, the Credit Union took an approach analogous to a creditor who refuses to allow reaffirmation of only the secured portion of a single, undersecured debt. Because a debtor does not have the right to compel a creditor to accept “partial” reaffirmation of an undersecured indebtedness, see, e.g., In re James, 120 B.R. 582, 586 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1990), there would be nothing improper about that creditor stating up front that the debt could not be selectively reaffirmed. The fact that the Credit Union’s policy encompassed two separate loans, instead of just one, does not call for a different conclusion. But see In re Green, 15 B.R. 75, 78, 8 B.C.D. 770, 5 C.B.C.2d 733 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1981) (<HOLDING>). While the Code emphasizes that a
holding that a creditor violated  362a by making repayment or reaffirmation of an unsecured loan a condition for permitting the debtor to reaffirm a secured loan but offering no rationale to support the conclusion holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that fraudulent loan transaction exposed financial institutions to risk of loss even though loan was secured holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan holding that the guarantor of debtors loan is a creditor by virtue of his right to reimbursement from debtor