Skip to content
Thread Options
#168204 - 03/10/04 04:53 PM SCRA
krmabyrd Offline
New Poster
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 18
Chicago Southland
Question regarding whether a customer qualifies for coverage under this act.....


Mary take out an individual loan prior to her marriage to John. The two then are married at a later date. John is in the service and is now called to active duty. Mary now is looking for relieve under the act based on John (who is not on the loan and was not even spouse when loan was made)being called to active duty.

Does she qualify for relief under the act?


Return to Top
Lending to Servicemembers (SCRA, JWNDAA), War, Terrorism
#168205 - 03/10/04 05:31 PM Re: SCRA
gone Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 770
The loan is not protected under the act. It only covers joint obligations made prior to being called active duty. Also the military status must have a "material effect" on the service member's ability to pay the loan. (Section 207)

In this case, the loan is not jointly obligated, and was based on her income alone. Therefore, IMO, her husband's status has not effected her ability to pay the loan.
However, if she was forced to leave her job because he was called to active duty (PCSed elsewhere, unable to find a job, etc), and therefore has no income of her own, you may want to consider the reduction based on "doing the noble thing".

But under SCRA, she has is not protected under this case.

Return to Top
#168206 - 03/10/04 07:40 PM Re: SCRA
renniks Offline
Diamond Poster
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,162
New England
There was a case similar to this in Massachusetts about six months ago. The bank involved received a ton of negative publicity over this issue. The party involved went to every media outlet and received a great deal of press and television coverage. I would make sure that it is worth standing your ground over before making any decision.

Return to Top
#168207 - 03/10/04 11:20 PM Re: SCRA
gone Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 770
Don't get me wrong. I was not saying to take a hard stance. There will be a PR issue here if the customer decides to take it to the media. However with that said, I have read military sources that state the same thing, and this web page by Andy Z better explains what I was trying to say.
JAG also emphasises the material effect point. JAGCNET.ARMY.MIL
My situation: My husband became active duty on 11/12/03. I have not asked for any of my loans to be reduced (jointly, or seperate) based on the fact that our income was not materially effected by his active duty. In fact, since he was unemployed for 10 months prior to active duty, his current status had benefited us.

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z