Employee of Private Company Claiming Protection

Over the years, I have been VERY liberal in setting policy to apply SCRA protections. Virtually every time someone asks for something and invokes the military, regardless of circumstances or what the SCRA says, I've given in.

But this time, I've about had enough. A customer is demanding the 6% and other protections, and his documentation is an EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT with a private company. Apparently he is working as support for an Embassy Security Force in one of the affected areas.

I denied this because he's not on active duty in the military (not to mention probably making a lot more money than he was before, but that's another matter). The customer's wife is relying on Section 104, which is about citizens of the United States serving with foreign allied forces. This is ridiculous, and I denied that too. Someone who is in the reserves who gets called into Active Duty deserves everything we can give them and more. Someone who works for a private company is an employee of a private company.

Now the guy has a lawyer, who just sent me a threatening letter, demanding I show proof of a negative, i.e., proof he is not eligible. Does anyone know where I can get that, or if there are some JAG papers on this?

I would have your attorney send the attorney back a letter with the definition of a servicemember telling them to produce documentation that their client is an active duty servicemember or that they are serving as a member of a foreign allied forces. I would also demand that they produce documentation of what their salary will be while under this contract and that their salary will be reduced that it places them in a hardship to meet their debts.

They will not be able to produce documentation the person meets the definition of a servicemember nor that their financial situation will cause them a hardship.

I have a friend that works for a private contractor that works on different military systems. He went to Iraq last year for 4 months. His salary while there was $24,000 per month plus all expenses.

I would stand firm on this, but I would also have your attorney reply to let this other attorney know you have no intentions of rolling over.

Would be interested to hear about the outcome of this.

Now the guy has a lawyer, who just sent me a threatening letter, demanding I show proof of a negative, i.e., proof he is not eligible. Does anyone know where I can get that, or if there are some JAG papers on this?

[/quote]

I love this charge your client $$$$$ and make the bank do their work.

Classic

You don't have to act. You can call their bluff and see it they initiate any suit against you. I agree with your opinion.

FWIW, if the rate went down, what kind of dollars are involved? I wonder if it is significant since they got an attorney, assuming it is a real attorney and this isn't a prepaid legal fee attorney.

I'd also be interested in an analysis of 207(c) and how they would do under this test - ‘‘CREDITOR PROTECTION.—A court may grant a creditor relief from the limitations of this section if, in the opinion of the court, the ability of the servicemember to pay interest upon the obligation or liability at a rate in excess of 6 percent per year is not materially affected by reason of the servicemember’s military service.

That was exactly my point in advising them to request documentation of the persons salary while working for the contractor.

Geeze. And I went into banking to "make money."

Seriously, I know contractors over there and they can be placed in harms way. There is more reward for the risk than the E-4 gets, however.

Unfortunately that is very true.

Sorry I forgot to write back about the outcome. I did what you said and wrote the attorney we'd be happy to consider the SCRA reduction after receiving proof he was a 'servicemember' and then gave the definition as defined in the the Act. I got no response, and I guess the (prepaid) attorney punted. The spouse kept insisting, but we held our ground, although I did not pursue the account legally for non-payment, since I didn't need the grief and the balance was small (but we would have had to write a big check if the account was due the 6% going back). Finally, the wife settled the balance, kicking and screaming the whole way that ANYONE working in a war zone is protected. So it worked out, and I appreciate the help!

I would, respectfully, disagree with the spouse - if you are in the volunteer army and are ordered to a war zone with no other options - you deserve SCRA coverage - if you accept a job as a contractor so you can make big money, you don't. (Kind of spits on the service the E4's are giving, as Andy alluded to)

Thanks for updating us on the conclusion....