Legal Opinion
Steinebach v. Tucson Electric Power Co. (In Re Steinebach)
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided January 2, 2004No. Bankruptcy No. 4-02-04876-EWH, Adversary Nos. 4-02-00138-TUC, 4-02-00158-TUC, 4-02-00161-TUCPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION
EILEEN W. HOLLOWELL, Bankruptcy Judge.
In this case, I have been asked to decide if consumer debtors must pay a utility deposit in order to satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 366(b) which requires that utilities receive adequate assurance of payment post-petition. If consumer debtors have timely been paying their utility bills, utilities are not entitled to a deposit as adequate assurance because they are not confronted with an unreasonable risk of not being paid simply because a customer files a bankruptcy case. When a consumer debtor is more than 30 days past due on utility bills…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- In Re Santa Clara Circuits West, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 1982
- Begley v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (In Re Begley)District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- In Re Caldor, Inc.-NYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Massachusetts Electric Co. v. Keydata Corp. (In Re Keydata Corp.), Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of Massachusetts1981
- Hennen v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (In Re Hennen)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re AstleUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · 2006
- In Re Crystal Cathedral MinistriesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2011