WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2004 ? A new law replacing the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil
Relief Act of 1940 will provide military personnel -- especially those
deployed
or called to active duty -- greater protections to handle their personal
financial and legal obligations, Defense Department officials said here.
President Bush signed the Service Members' Civil Relief Act into law Dec. 19.
"The focus of the SCRA is the same as under the SSCRA: to provide protections
to service members who have difficulty meeting their personal financial and
legal obligations because of their military service," said Air Force Lt. Col.
Patrick Lindemann, deputy director for legal policy in DoD's Office of the
Undersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness [http://www.dod.mil/prhome/].
"The SCRA is a significant law, because it clarifies and updates the
provisions
that existed in the SSCRA, while adding some additional protections," he said.
"Service members on long-term deployments or called to active duty should not
have to worry about their families in their absence being evicted from their
quarters without sufficient legal protections," he continued, "or that they
are
paying on a leased car or apartment that they can't use, or about civil legal
proceedings they can't attend because of their deployment.
"These are some of the situations the SCRA covers so that service members are
able to devote their energies to the military mission and the defense needs of
the nation, and not on civil matters waiting for them at home," he added.
What Lindemann called "a significant change" added in the SCRA is an automatic
90-day stay of civil proceedings upon application by the service member. This
applies to all judicial and administrative hearings. In the past, according to
Lindemann, stays were discretionary with the courts.
The SCRA also makes it clear that the 6 percent limitation on interest rates
for pre-service debts requires a reduction in monthly payments, and that any
interest in excess of 6 percent is forgiven, not deferred, Lindemann said.
The SCRA also expanded the protection against eviction. Under the SSCRA,
service members and their dependents who entered into a lease for $1,200 or
less could not be evicted without a court order. The SCRA increased that
maximum lease amount to $2,400 and added an annual adjustment for inflation.
For 2004, the maximum will be $2,465. Lindemann said this will significantly
increase the number of service members entitled to this protection.
The SCRA also gives the service member who has received permanent-change-of-
station orders or who is being deployed for not less than 90 days the right to
terminate a housing lease with 30 days' written notice. Prior to the SCRA,
service members could be required to pay for housing they were unable to
occupy.
One of the more significant provisions in the SCRA that did not exist in the
SSCRA, Lindemann said, was an added protection for service members who have
motor vehicle leases. Any active duty service member who has received PCS
orders outside the continental United States, or who is being deployed for not
less than 180 days, may terminate a motor vehicle lease. The law prohibits
early termination charges. "Now, service members won't have to pay monthly
lease payments for a car they can't use," said Lindemann.
"Service members may not always realize all the protections they have under
the
law," Lindemann said. "If service members have questions about the SCRA or the
protections that they may be entitled to, they should contact their unit judge
advocate or installation legal assistance officer for further assistance."
Update to Soldiers and Sailors act for military YEA
by SheilaM 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
SheilaM
-
bigboi
I guess every little bit helps. However, I am a bit weary of the Gov. proscribing all these laws that force leaseholders to act a certain way. I say leave it up to the discretion of the parties involved, or at least make sure that ppl who rent or lease to service men get some type of monetary compensation for their inconvieince when the serviceman gets called up.
-
SheilaM
Err this original legislation was done in 1940. Why should someone that is serving their country be reamed for things they have no control over. I worked for Citibank BELIEVE me they are not hurt at all by this legislation, the bank out of courtesy actually would take the interest rate to 0 and freeze the account. I think if you looked into how little compensation these boys get and what they have to pay for you'd change your mind.
-
dh
i don't know much about this type of thing, but from my cynical viewpoint it looks like the government are just trying to make it easier for themselves to send their boys off to fight by getting public opinion on board, it's also good for the government because the soldiers & sailors will have less to worry about and it'll keep them focussed on the job at hand and not constantly thinking about home.
surely it is good for the soldiers & sailors, but it would be nice if the real reason for the update was because it was good for the soldiers and sailors, in reality i think it's more likely it was done just so that it's easier to send them away.
dh'
(note: yeah it's a good thing for those serving, i just question the timing)
-
SheilaM
The timing is do to many wives being evicted while their spouse is away etc. That is the timing should have happend many years ago. It was very antiquated and limited.
-
Double Edge
surely it is good for the soldiers & sailors, but it would be nice if the real reason for the update was because it was good for the soldiers and sailors, in reality i think it's more likely it was done just so that it's easier to send them away.
Oh come on, get real. The first act was passed over 60 years ago... it's about time it was updated. If your reasoning was even close, then the government would have done something long before now during other conflicts like: Korea, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afganistan, etc...... The military deserves it and THAT is the primary reason.
-
dh
doubledge, you are probably right, like i said it's just 'my cynical viewpoint', not a point i would debate seriously, i'm cynical by nature, especially when it comes to governments.
dh'
-
Simon
Perhaps this is related to the stop loss orders being issued? It would seem unfair to force someone to stay who was planning to leave and at the same time leave them open to lose out financially.
-
SheilaM
Did you even read it Simon? THIS is for someone being deployed so they aren't being charged high interest, held to a lease they won't use either for living or car. Good try at trying to get your agenda presented but your dead wrong <sigh>