context: In the absence of any evidence of a contractual relationship, I conclude that BFCU's termination of the Jaspers' membership benefits did not violate the stay.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 129 B.R. 75, 78
citation_a.parenthetical: credit union's policy of revoking membership benefits of members who caused credit union a loss does not violate automatic stay
citation_a.sentence: See also In re Henry, 129 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1991) (credit union’s policy of revoking membership benefits of members who caused credit union a loss does not violate automatic stay); cf. In re Bobbitt, 174 B.R. 548, 553-54 (inferring existence of contract between credit union and member that covered maintenance of accounts, despite inadequate evidence of such an agreement presented at trial, court nonetheless holds that credit union’s “cancellation” of services constituted at most a breach of the inferred contract, for which relief from stay would not be required).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 174 B.R. 548, 553-54
citation_b.parenthetical: inferring existence of contract between credit union and member that covered maintenance of accounts, despite inadequate evidence of such an agreement presented at trial, court nonetheless holds that credit union's "cancellation" of services constituted at most a breach of the inferred contract, for which relief from stay would not be required
citation_b.sentence: See also In re Henry, 129 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1991) (credit union’s policy of revoking membership benefits of members who caused credit union a loss does not violate automatic stay); cf. In re Bobbitt, 174 B.R. 548, 553-54 (inferring existence of contract between credit union and member that covered maintenance of accounts, despite inadequate evidence of such an agreement presented at trial, court nonetheless holds that credit union’s “cancellation” of services constituted at most a breach of the inferred contract, for which relief from stay would not be required).