.jpg)
So Cal Edison closes Ch 7 debtor's account and demands a
Interestingly, So Cal Edison went through its own bankruptcy some years
back.
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> 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/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
>
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> On 12/28/2012 1:13 AM, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
>
> Dear Listmates,****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Board Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]****
>
> ** **
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt****
>
> 15150 Hornell Street****
>
> Whittier, CA 90604****
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159****
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365****
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com****
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com****
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/****
>
> ** **
>
> *We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief
> under the Bankruptcy Code.*
>
> ** **
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.****
>
> ** **
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.*
> ***
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Interestingly, So Cal Edison went through its own bankruptcy some years back.On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.