In Re Finevest Foods, Inc.

140 B.R. 581, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 101, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 735, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1563, 1992 WL 103626
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMay 15, 1992
DocketBankruptcy 91-614-BKC-3P1 to 91-619-BKC-3P1
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 B.R. 581 (In Re Finevest Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Finevest Foods, Inc., 140 B.R. 581, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 101, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 735, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1563, 1992 WL 103626 (Fla. 1992).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

GEORGE L. PROCTOR, Bankruptcy Judge.

This proceeding is before the Court upon Duke Power Company’s (“Duke Power”) Motion for Determination and Payment of Administrative Expense Claim. The parties entered into a pretrial stipulation waiving their right to a trial and setting forth the relevant facts. Upon the pretrial stipulation, the Court enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

Findings of Fact

The parties stipulated to the facts as follows:

1. Duke Power is a publicly-held, state-regulated utility company that provides and has provided metered electricity service to Land-O-Sun at various locations in North Carolina and South Carolina since October, 1969, and to Southeast at its Spartanburg, South Carolina location since July, 1988.
2. Duke Power provides and/or provided metered electricity service to Debtors in accordance with state utility tariffs and/or utility service regulations filed by Duke Power with and approved by state regulatory commissions pursuant to state utility tariffs, which state utility tariffs and/or utility service regulations required and require Duke Power to bill Debtors in arrears rather than in advance.
3. Debtors filed their respective Chapter 11 petitions on February 11, 1991.
4. Duke Power has continued to provide Debtors with metered electricity service subsequent to the filing of Debtors’ Chapter 11 petition(s).
5. Since the inception of the above-described business relationship between Duke Power and Debtors, Duke Power has billed Debtors for metered electricity service in accordance with the following procedure relative to each respective Debtor and each respective meter location, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit “A” hereto.
(i) The meter is read by Duke Power, on a monthly basis on or about a certain day of each month, thereby determining Debtors’ electricity consumption for the preceding monthly billing cycle.
(ii) Debtors’ electricity consumption varies on a daily, hourly and second by second basis.
(iii) The only method by which Duke Power is able to ascertain the amount of electricity consumed by Debtor is by reading the meter.
(iv) Once the meter is read and the amount due determined, an invoice is produced by Duke Power and sent to Debtors for payment.
6. On February 11, 1991, Debtors filed their Chapter 11 petition(s) and, thereafter, Duke Power read the Debtors’ electricity consumption meters for the locations and account numbers set forth in Exhibit “A”.
7. Subsequently, Duke Power submitted to Debtors invoices for payment for each respective account and location in the amounts and on the dates set forth in Exhibit “A”.
8. Each of the invoices submitted by Duke Power to debtors, as evidenced by Exhibit “A” hereto, represents a charge for electricity consumption by Debtors which occurred both prior and subsequent to the filing of Debtors’ petition(s) (the “Invoices”).
9. Debtors’ partial payments, to the extent made and as evidenced in Exhibit “A” hereto, are based on pro-rated estimates by Debtors as to the amount of electricity consumed by Debtors subsequent to the filing of Debtors’ petition(s).
10. On or about March 15, 1991, W. Wallace Gregory, Jr., Assistant General Counsel of Duke Power, informed Debtors’ counsel by letter that Duke Power *583 expected to be paid for the entire amounts as set forth in the Invoices as administrative expenses of the Debtors’ estate(s).
11. Debtors have taken the position that said usage is not an administrative expense of the estate(s) of the Debtors and have refused and continue to refuse to pay the full amount of the debt resulting from the aforesaid meter readings, as evidenced by the amounts set forth in Exhibit “A” hereto.

The sole issue before the Court is whether post-petition reading of an electric meter renders the entire electricity charge an administrative expense when the billing cycle commences pre-petition and ends post-petition.

Conclusions of Law

The allowance of an administrative expense priority is governed by § 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which reads in relevant part:

(b) After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, ... including—
(1) (A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate, including wages, salaries, or commissions for services rendered after the commencement of the case;....

Section 503(b) is intended to facilitate reorganization by encouraging creditors to conduct business with and extend credit to the debtor in possession:

If a reorganization is to succeed, creditors asked to extend credit after the petition is filed must be given priority.... Without a provision like § 503, efforts to reorganize would be hampered by the necessity of advance payment for all goods and services supplied to the estate since presumably no creditor would willingly assume the status of a non-priority creditor to a debtor undergoing reorganization.

In re Jartran, Inc., 732 F.2d 584, 586 (7th Cir.1984) (citations omitted).

Generally, the overall objective of bankruptcy is to ensure that a debtor’s resources are equally distributed amongst its creditors. The Bankruptcy Code grants priority to certain debts, but such statutory preference must be strictly construed in order to protect all creditors, as well as the integrity of the bankruptcy system. In re Philadelphia Mortg. Trust, 117 B.R. 820, 826 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1990); In re Amarex, Inc., 853 F.2d 1526, 1530 (10th Cir.1988).

The burden of proving a priority is upon the party claiming an administrative expense. In re Amarex, Inc., 853 F.2d at 1530. See In re Moore, 109 B.R. 777, 780 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1989); In re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc., 60 B.R. 679 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1986). Under § 503(b)(1) such burden involves proving that the claim was an actual and necessary cost of preserving the bankruptcy estate.

This Court considered whether certain severance benefits and medical insurance premiums for key employees terminated after the petition date were administrative expenses in In re Rawson Food Services, Inc., 61 B.R. 207 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1986). Like Duke Power, the debtor argued that the claims were entitled to administrative expense priority because the right to the benefits did not accrue until after the petition was filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Hackney
351 B.R. 179 (N.D. Alabama, 2006)
In Re Best Products Co.
203 B.R. 51 (E.D. Virginia, 1996)
In Re Finevest Foods, Inc.
159 B.R. 972 (M.D. Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 B.R. 581, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 101, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 735, 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1563, 1992 WL 103626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-finevest-foods-inc-flmb-1992.