Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Dear Nick:
Bankruptcy Court's routinely grant the type of relief sought by debtors inGottschalks' Utilities Motion. As indicated in the Motion, the court inthe Linens Holding Co. bankruptcy found that the debtor's creation of an
interest bearing account holding 50% of the debtor's monthly utility costssatisfied the Bankruptcy Code's requirement of adequate assurance of future
performance. In re Linens Holding Co., Case No. 08-10832 (CSS)(Bankr.D.Del.
May 27, 2008). Likewise, in the Pliant Corp. bankruptcy, the court foundthat a two week deposit by the debtor provided its utilities with adequateassurance of future performance. In re Pliant Corp., Case No. 06-10001
(MFW)(Bankr.D.Del. Jan. 4, 2006).
Robert Suhajda, Attorney
In a message dated 12/28/2012 10:11:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bklawr@yahoo.com writes:
While this is unusual in a Chapter 7 context for some reason, it looks
like after 20 days--unless the debtor or trustee has tendered adequate
assurance payments as provided for in 11 U.S.C. 366--they can discontinue service.
If it was still within the 20 day period, I think you have a good stay
violation claim.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: _http://www.bklaw.com/_ (http://www.bklaw.com/)
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board ofLegal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Ladies and Gents:
The answer is in the code. Read Section 366.
d
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> Hello:
>
> No, I am not aware of any case law but that raises the same question for
> other utilities.
> Can the water company, the gas company, telephone companies make the same
> move?
>
> Robert Suhajda, Attorney
>
> In a message dated 12/28/2012 1:18:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com writes:
>
> I have a Chapter 7 client who listed a past due debt of $42.50 to Southern
> California Edison in Schedule F. Sometime after filing Edison sent her a
> bill for the debt. In response, she called them and told the Edison
> contact that she had filed for Chapter 7 relief. Edison immediately closed
> her existing account and opened another account for her, imposing the
> requirement that she pay a deposit of $325 on the new account.****
>
> ****
>
> Leaving aside the fact that she should have simply paid the debt prior to
> filing, we are now in an awkward position: she does not have the funds to
> pay the deposit. I plan on calling Edison to see if we can reset things
> without my client having to pay the deposit. As a negotiating tactic I
> would like to assert that Edisons retributive move was a stay violation
> because, even though technically they are not attempting to collect the
> $42.50, they are insisting that she pay $325 because of her bankruptcy
> filing a somewhat roundabout way to collect, not only the $42.50, but
> also a punitive $282.50.****
>
> ****
>
> Are any of you aware of any case law addressing this sort of thing? In
> particular, are there any cases holding that Edisons behavior constitutes
> a stay violation?****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these questions.****
>
> ****
>
> All the best,****
>
> ****
>
> Nick****
>
>
>
Ladies and Gents:The answer is in the code. Read Section 366.dOn Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, <robert90701@aol.com> wrote:
Hello:
No, I am not aware of any case law but that raises the same question
for other utilities.
Can the water company, the gas company, telephone companies make the same
move?
Robert Suhajda, Attorney
In a message dated 12/28/2012 1:18:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com writes:
I have a
Chapter 7 client who listed a past due debt of $42.50 to Southern California
Edison in Schedule F. Sometime after filing Edison sent her a bill for the debt. In response, she called them and told the Edison contact that
she had filed for Chapter 7 relief. Edison immediately closed her
existing account and opened another account for her, imposing the requirement
that she pay a deposit of $325 on the new account.

Leaving aside
the fact that she should have simply paid the debt prior to filing, we are now
in an awkward position: she does not have the funds to pay the
deposit. I plan on calling Edison to see if we can reset things without
my client having to pay the deposit. As a negotiating tactic I would
like to assert that Edisons retributive move was a stay violation because,
even though technically they are not attempting to collect the $42.50, they
are insisting that she pay $325 because of her bankruptcy filing a somewhat roundabout way to collect,
not only the $42.50, but also a punitive $282.50.

Are any of
you aware of any case law addressing this sort of thing? In particular,
are there any cases holding that Edisons behavior constitutes a stay
violation?

Thanks in
advance for any light you can shed on these questions.

All the
best,

Nick
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It's a permissible move by any utility company; see Section 366.
Here's a brief article I did on the subject for Consumer Help Central:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Yes. DWP does it routinely.
Sent from my Stella Havkin's IPhone
On Dec 28, 2012, at 8:04 AM, robert90701@aol.com wrote:
> Hello:
>
> No, I am not aware of any case law but that raises the same question for other utilities.
> Can the water company, the gas company, telephone companies make the same move?
>
> Robert Suhajda, Attorney
>
> In a message dated 12/28/2012 1:18:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com writes:
> I have a Chapter 7 client who listed a past due debt of $42.50 to Southern California Edison in Schedule F. Sometime after filing Edison sent her a bill for the debt. In response, she called them and told the Edison contact that she had filed for Chapter 7 relief. Edison immediately closed her existing account and opened another account for her, imposing the requirement that she pay a deposit of $325 on the new account.
>
>
> Leaving aside the fact that she should have simply paid the debt prior to filing, we are now in an awkward position: she does not have the funds to pay the deposit. I plan on calling Edison to see if we can reset things without my client having to pay the deposit. As a negotiating tactic I would like to assert that Edisons retributive move was a stay violation because, even though technically they are not attempting to collect the $42.50, they are insisting that she pay $325 because of her bankruptcy filing a somewhat roundabout way to collect, not only the $42.50, but also a punitive $282.50.
>
>
> Are any of you aware of any case law addressing this sort of thing? In particular, are there any cases holding that Edisons behavior constitutes a stay violation?
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these questions.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Nick
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hello:
No, I am not aware of any case law but that raises the same question forother utilities.
Can the water company, the gas company, telephone companies make the same move?
Robert Suhajda, Attorney
In a message dated 12/28/2012 1:18:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com writes:
I have a Chapter 7 client who listed a past due debt of $42.50 to SouthernCalifornia Edison in Schedule F. Sometime after filing Edison sent her abill for the debt. In response, she called them and told the Edison
contact that she had filed for Chapter 7 relief. Edison immediately closed her
existing account and opened another account for her, imposing the
requirement that she pay a deposit of $325 on the new account.
Leaving aside the fact that she should have simply paid the debt prior tofiling, we are now in an awkward position: she does not have the funds topay the deposit. I plan on calling Edison to see if we can reset things
without my client having to pay the deposit. As a negotiating tactic I would
like to assert that Edisons retributive move was a stay violationbecause, even though technically they are not attempting to collect the $42.50,
they are insisting that she pay $325 because of her bankruptcy filing somewhat roundabout way to collect, not only the $42.50, but also a punitive
$282.50.
Are any of you aware of any case law addressing this sort of thing? In
particular, are there any cases holding that Edisons behavior constitutes a
stay violation?
Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these questions.
All the best,
Nick
Hello:

No, I am not aware of any case law but that raises the same question
for other utilities.
Can the water company, the gas company, telephone companies make the same
move?

Robert Suhajda, Attorney

In a message dated 12/28/2012 1:18:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com writes:
I have a
Chapter 7 client who listed a past due debt of $42.50 to Southern California
Edison in Schedule F. Sometime after filing Edison sent her a bill for
the debt. In response, she called them and told the Edison contact that
she had filed for Chapter 7 relief. Edison immediately closed her
existing account and opened another account for her, imposing the requirement
that she pay a deposit of $325 on the new account.

Leaving aside
the fact that she should have simply paid the debt prior to filing, we are now
in an awkward position: she does not have the funds to pay the
deposit. I plan on calling Edison to see if we can reset things without
my client having to pay the deposit. As a negotiating tactic I would
like to assert that Edisons retributive move was a stay violation because,
even though technically they are not attempting to collect the $42.50, they
are insisting that she pay $325 because of her bankruptcy filing a somewhat roundabout way to collect,
not only the $42.50, but also a punitive $282.50.

Are any of
you aware of any case law addressing this sort of thing? In particular,
are there any cases holding that Edisons behavior constitutes a stay
violation?

Thanks in
advance for any light you can shed on these questions.

All the
best,

Nick

The post was migrated from Yahoo.