U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–867 2011

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

THE SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

Serial No. 112–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

February 9, 2011 

Page 

Alleged Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act .................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Jeff Miller ............................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Miller ........................................................ 62 

Hon. Bob Filner ....................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Filner ................................................... 63 

Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, prepared statement of ...................................................... 63 

Hon. John Barrow, prepared statement of ............................................................ 64 

Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman, prepared statement of ................................................ 64 

Hon. Russ Carnahan, prepared statement of ........................................................ 65 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Hollister K. Petraeus, Team Lead, Office 

of Servicemember Affairs, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Implementation Team ................................................................................................... 44 

Prepared statement of Mrs. Petraeus ............................................................. 75 

U.S. Department of Defense, Colonel Shawn Shumake, (USA), Director, Office 

of Legal Policy, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense ................... 47 

Prepared statement of Colonel Shumake ....................................................... 78 

Harvey & Battey, PA, Beaufort, SC, William B. Harvey III, Esq ....................... 10 

JPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, NY, Stephanie B. Mudick, Executive 

Vice President, Office of Consumer Practices .................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of Ms. Mudick ................................................................. 71 

Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A., Columbia, SC, Richard A. ‘‘Dick’’ Harpootlian, 

Esq ......................................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of Mr. Harpootlian ......................................................... 65 

Rowles, Captain Jonathon, (USMC), and Mrs. Julia ............................................ 5 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Jones & Odom, LLP, Shreveport, LA, Colonel John S. Odom, Jr., USAF 

(Ret.) Esq., statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 85 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs, to Naomi Gendler Camper, Managing Director and Head of 

Federal Government Relations, JPMorgan Chase, letter dated February 

15, 2011, and JPMorgan Chase’s responses ............................................... 86 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs, to Hon. Robert M. Gates, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, letter dated February 15, 2011, and DoD responses ....................... 88 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs, to Elizabeth Warren, Assistant to the President and Special 

Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury, The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, letter dated February 15, 2011, and Treasury’s responses ........................................................................................................... 99 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

THE SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [Chairman of 

the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Bilirakis, Stearns, Lamborn, 

Benishek, Buerkle, Huelskamp, Johnson, Runyan, Stutzman, Filner, Michaud, McNerney, Donnelly, Walz, and Barrow. 

Also present: Representative Miller of North Carolina. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning everybody and welcome to the 

first oversight hearing of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

for the 112th Congress and I appreciate everybody’s attendance 

today. As we begin our important work on behalf of America’s veterans and our servicemembers, I would like to point out that the 

veterans are well represented on this Committee, and while Members look after the interest of 23 million U.S. veterans and their 

families, some 12.2 million, over half of America’s veterans reside 

in the States that we represent. I am especially proud of 110,000 

veterans that live in the first Congressional District of Florida, the 

Florida Panhandle. 

And that responsibility brings us to the subject of today’s hearing. I know the Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned 

about today’s topic, but consistent with past practice, I would like 

to limit opening remarks to myself and the Ranking Member so 

that we may have more time to hear from our witnesses, and of 

course any Member is able to submit their opening remarks for the 

record. 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) has existed in various forms since the War of 1812, and each version has shared a 

singular goal, to protect those who protect us. 

The 2003 revision, which I cosponsored and the amendments we 

have made since, continue that tradition. I am committed to ensuring SCRA remains a relevant and viable tool and I know the Ranking Member and the rest of this Committee share in my commitment. 

My goal for this oversight hearing is to determine whether or not 

the SCRA afforded our servicemembers and their families are 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

meeting their needs. We are all aware of related matters pending 

before the court. This is not intended to be a trial of any sort. I 

am not seeking to prejudice that or any future action in any direction, at the same time it is important to recognize that this Committee has a duty to ensure that the law is working for active-duty 

servicemembers. 

I have said recently and I will say it again, our Nation’s war 

fighters and their families should not have to fight to keep their 

piece of the American dream while fighting on foreign soil defending the fundamental right that each and every one of us has. 

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us. First I 

want to thank Captain Jonathan Rowles and his wife Julia for 

their persistence in exercising their rights. 

Second, I want to thank JPMorgan Chase for reaching out to us, 

and more importantly, for admitting its mistakes and then making 

efforts that it has made to rectify them. 

I hope our witnesses from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) 

will be able to assure us of the effectiveness of their program to 

educate servicemembers on their rights under SCRA, and I also 

look forward to hearing from the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about how it can contribute to preventing similar occurrences in the future. 

What we have here now is what some might call a teachable moment. For the finance services industry, the lesson is to understand 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and to undertake the same 

sort of review as has Chase to ensure its compliance. For DoD, it 

is time to review whether the military services’ SCRA training programs are getting the job done. Finally, servicemembers are ultimately responsible for understanding their rights and responsibility under SCRA and holding their financial institutions accountable. Today we will be asking and listening for ways to ensure that 

these goals are in fact being met. 

Before we begin I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 

allowed to sit at the dais and be permitted to ask questions. Hearing no objection so ordered. 

I want to extend a warm welcome to our colleague, Brad Miller, 

from North Carolina. Mr. Miller drafted legislation last Congress 

on SCRA and I am happy he is here with us today. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, my good friend, Mr. Filner, for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller appears on p. 62.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BOB FILNER 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding 

this hearing today. I know you have a rigorous oversight schedule 

and I am glad we are undertaking this issue for our first hearing. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Reyes may introduce a statement for the record. Unfortunately his wife had an accident so he is with her this morning. He planned to be here today 

and has a statement to introduce into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Silvestre Reyes appears on p. 85.] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Mr. FILNER. This is of course a very important issue as the 

Chairman stated and we have to monitor it, especially as our foreclosure crisis continues to unfold. 

I want to thank all of the panelists here and especially those who 

have traveled great distances. 

We want to find out why banks such as JPMorgan Chase have 

overcharged our military families who are actively engaged in defending our Nation. 

While we want to know how these charges happen, we also want 

to know what is being done to prevent them from occurring again. 

As foreclosure filings continue to rise, the effect on Americans 

has been acute, with my State of California having one of the most 

affected populations. According to RealtyTrac, California metro 

areas such as San Diego have been seriously affected by these foreclosures. Like many of our Nation’s heroes, and most Americans, 

see homeownership as an integral part of the American dream. Unfortunately, for a number of our military families that part of the 

American dream has become a nightmare when JPMorgan foreclosed on their homes. 

It is my sincerest hope that JPMorgan Chase will be taking immediate corrective steps to restore these families to their homes as 

soon as possible. I have grave concerns for as you mentioned Captain Rowles and his wife who are here. They have been through a 

5-year nightmare with this bank. It is unconscionable that any 

family would have to endure this kind of treatment, but especially 

a military family. 

For many of our returning servicemembers and veterans, the 

stress of what they have gone through by serving in a war may 

still affect them, that is why the protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are there to provide protection for all of 

our military families. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your commitment to stand up 

for veterans and their families by making sure that we take all of 

the steps necessary today. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony and I want to thank 

those families who are here and have stood with our Nation. Now 

it is time for our Nation to stand with you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on 

p. 63.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Filner, and I will now ask the 

first panel if you would please approach the head table. 

With us today we have co-counsels representing Captain and 

Mrs. Rowles, Mr. Dick Harpootlian and Mr. William Harvey. They 

are accompanied by Captain and Mrs. Rowles. And Mr. Harpootlian, we appreciate you bringing the Rowleses and coming to testify 

before this Committee. 

Your complete written statement will in fact be entered into the 

record and you are recognized. If you could real quick right in front 

of you there should be a button to turn the microphone on. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. ‘‘DICK’’ HARPOOTLIAN, ESQ., 

RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A., COLUMBIA, SC; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPTAIN JONATHON ROWLES (USMC), AND 

JULIA ROWLES; AND WILLIAM B. HARVEY, III, ESQ., HARVEY 

& BATTEY, PA, BEAUFORT, SC 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to 

be here today with the Rowleses. It is an honor to have met them 

and Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Letts-Smith, and Marine Corporal 

Hupfl who Bill Harvey and I represent, all three of them. 

And since we have become involved in this case we have met and 

talked to numerous other members of our military services, fighting men and woman who have been through a living hell. While 

they have been trying to fight our enemies, they have had to fight 

a second front on the home front. They have been subjected to 

some of the most degrading, intimidating conduct that anybody— 

anybody that in my 40 years of practicing law have been subjected 

to. 

My written statement details what the Rowleses went through, 

5 years of it. 

If you watched The Today Show on NBC this morning you saw 

Lieutenant Colonel Letts-Smith describe what she went through. 

And what they went through was not—and I have read the statement of Chase—human error, whoops, we found out we were taking money we shouldn’t have taken, we subjected these people to 

illegal conduct, we made a mistake, we are going to correct it. 

I was a State prosecutor for 12 years in South Carolina, every 

person we ever caught breaking the law, taking something that 

wasn’t theirs was more than willing to give it back, give a mea 

culpa and go the other way—beyond their way. 

I made some suggestions in terms of making this law tougher so 

that this isn’t a debit on a balance sheet for a big bank so that they 

are deterred in the future from treating our American heroes the 

way they treated these folks. 

Now one of those is to make it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. The second thing is to make the sanction stiffer. And 

third to give attorneys’ fees. And attorneys’ fees in many of these 

cases—we are in a class action—many of them are individual cases 

much like a 1983 case where the damages may only be—the financial damages may only be $1,000, but you want to incentivize lawyers to get involved in representing our men and women in the 

military who have been wronged. 

It is amazing to me—and I know Bill Harvey who has a son that 

is a helicopter pilot for the Navy, that anybody, let alone these 

folks, are treated in this fashion. 

Now I talked to probably 100 military personnel that called me 

or e-mailed me that have been treated much the same way, and 

came to the conclusion that as you talk to corporate representatives, as you talk to these banks—not just Chase, but all of them— 

they treat our American fighting men and women as if they are insects. I mean that may be too strong a word, but you have seen 

the written statement and you can hear from those folks in a moment, they went through hell. This guy is deployed defending us. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Sarah Letts-Smith is in Iraq, two tours. They took her house. Put 

her kids and husband out on the street. 

This is like a bad movie, except they are living it. While they are 

trying to defend us they are catching friendly fire, so to speak, from 

this country. 

Now philosophically—we talked about this at dinner last night— 

and the Captain is far more gentle about this than I am. He does 

believe the criminal penalty should be increased, and he wants 

Chase prosecuted, and he has spoken to our U.S. Attorney in South 

Carolina, Bill Nettles, and obviously I am not privy to what the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is 

doing, but I can tell you that that conversation went very well, and 

Bill Nettles has also spoken to Sarah Letts-Smith. 

And so there is perhaps some criminal prosecution going forward, 

but the penalties need to be stiffer, the banks need to understand 

that they are not going to have their way with our American fighting men and women. 

The last thing I would say is this. The United States Supreme 

Court, within the last 24 months in a case called Citizens United, decided that corporations have civil rights, the constitutional right 

to free speech. Well, with the constitutional right to free speech 

goes the constitutional responsibility that every citizen has. Patriotism is defined by the dictionary as loyalty to the country and a 

willing to sacrifice. 

These corporate citizens have lost—if they ever had it—the willingness to sacrifice a penny for our fighting men and women and 

to do what these folks do every day for a hell of a lot less money 

than the bonuses they are getting on Wall Street on the banks. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harpootlian appears on p. 65.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Harpootlian. And Captain and 

Mrs. Rowles, again, thank you for your persistence without which 

really several thousands servicemembers may not have benefited 

from SCRA. 

In addition to questions that we are going to have for your counsel, I may have a couple questions for you and you may answer 

them if you want to. If you don’t feel comfortable answering, you 

are welcome to refer them to your counsel, that would be entirely 

appropriate. 

And I would like to ask, do you have a statement that you would 

like to give us or a few words before we begin questioning Mr. 

Harpootlian? Captain. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. I do not, sir. Mr. Harpootlian said 

everything. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rowles. 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. I am fine. Mr. Harpootlian has covered pretty much our battle thus far. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I will ask if I can the first question of both of you, and again, 

you can answer the question or Mr. Harpootlian can answer it for 

you. 

When did you first realize that Chase had violated SCRA? Did 

you notify the Marine Corps legal staff? And if you did, what action 

did they take on your behalf? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Yes, sir. I first learned about SCRA 

while I was at Officer Candidate School (OCS) and my rights thereof. 

Afterward in 2008, after lengthy letters and calls and whatnot, 

I did go to the legal staff at Naval Air Station Pensacola where I 

was a flight student at the time. They looked over the case, but 

they were unsure of how to proceed, and due to the volume of other 

cases that they had at the time they just did not have the resources 

to pursue it, at which time we were told that we were doing pretty 

much everything we could, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you say you were first educated about it at 

OCS? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Yes, sir. We got a class while we 

were at OCS there in Quantico, Virginia, on our rights to SCRA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us some idea of the reaction when 

you contacted JPMorgan Chase, and how they handled the situation? And I am sure you both had conversations with them, so feel 

free to elaborate. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Yes, sir. I would characterize it as 

delayed and confused. I was asked to fax my orders several times 

back and forth. And being in the field you would have to—you 

would fax your orders, you would go away for a week or 2, you 

would come back to find they would ask for it again. You get a 

statement that is not correct so you call to recognize it. They say 

they need your orders again. At that point, I got a letter from my 

commander as well just to emphasize the point that I was active 

duty and sent my orders along with that as well, sir. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Mr. Chairman, I think if Mrs. Rowles could 

speak. She was pregnant with their second child, he is deployed, 

the child was born prematurely. She was having to deal with the 

birth of a child alone and Chase at the same time, and she is a 

little more emotional about it than he is. 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Yes, sir. Chase always had a problem with 

acknowledging any of our evidence or our homework I guess you 

would say in our SCRA benefits. 

We would instruct them that we are doing everything we could. 

We did make our payments every month on time in the full amount 

that they were supposed to be for, but however every month our 

statements were different. 

While Jonathan is away either in training, flight school, or any 

of his Marine Corps duties, I was left at home to deal with Chase 

and their problems. 

We have two children, one of them was born prematurely and 

had to have a lengthy stay in the hospital, but yet at the same 

time I am dealing with Chase and getting their phone calls, getting 

their harassment around the clock. 

Jonathan missed 2 hours of our daughter’s birthday party because Chase simply would not hang up the phone until he made 

a payment in which we had already paid our mortgage. 

This constant harassment and constant ignorance for the SCRA 

benefits to servicemembers is ridiculous and it is actually—it is 

very upsetting that for 5 years we have had to educate Chase as 

to the benefits that we are—we were privy to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Entitled to. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Entitled to, I am sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did they ever acknowledge the fact—I mean obviously if they kept asking for orders they must have known that 

there was something that they had to abide by? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. We were—sir, we were sending them orders 

quarterly, which we later found out we did not have to do. Once 

you send in orders and verify that you are indeed active-duty military, we were acknowledged, we were granted the permissions 

under the SCRA, that should have been it until his contract expired and had he continued military service. 

We had done that time and time again. And it is very—we didn’t 

have to do this. It was harassment even without collection calls 

constantly sending them, I guess his orders and all other paperwork, was harassment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have some other questions that I want to ask, 

but I want to go ahead and turn the microphone over to the Ranking Member, Mr. Filner. 

Mr. FILNER. Again, thank you for being here. I know it is not 

easy sometimes to do this and talk about your personal situation, 

but I think you are going to improve the lives of tens of thousands 

of people, so we really do appreciate it and we are sorry you are 

going through all of this. 

The fact that we have some publicity for what you are going 

through means we will have some changes. There are literally tens 

of thousands of other people, many on active duty, who the banks 

are putting through hell. 

The so-called loan modification programs don’t work, people are 

having to provide this kind of information over and over and over 

and over again. 

I have been on the phone with my constituents trying to call the 

major banks and they put you on hold for almost an hour at a time 

and switch you around to different people. After you think you got 

to right person, they take your information and then say they are 

the wrong person. Or, the next time you call, you get a different 

person who says, ‘‘I don’t know what that person said, it is not in 

the computer so tell me your story again.’’ I mean it goes on and 

on and on. People get so sick of fighting it that they just put their 

keys on the kitchen counter and leave. You have fought hard and 

that is important so we thank you for that. 

But what is going on around the country is just tragic, it is immoral, I think it is illegal not only for those who are covered by 

SCRA, but for everyone. 

The banks have packaged, repackaged, and resold so much that 

nobody knows who the owner of the note is. I don’t think any court 

has really approved any of the foreclosures that have come before 

them, but it is impossible, to know who really owns the loan. I 

think people should just stay in their house, frankly. 

I know the Chairman will be very surprised that I led a little 

demonstration around a house in my district that was going to be 

foreclosed on—we believed illegally. The sheriff was going to show 

up at 6:00 in the morning, so we had a couple hundred people surround the house at 5:00 in the morning. I was on the front steps 

just waiting to be taken away, because I thought a ‘‘sit in’’ at a 

house like that would spread across America like the ‘‘sit ins’’ durVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

ing the ’60s for racial justice. But one of the biggest banks in the 

world and the sheriff just backed down from all the publicity they 

were going to get if they foreclosed on this woman who had two 

kids who were very sick. It was a tragic story. 

I think what is going on all around America is wrong, tragic, and 

I am glad that you can be here to highlight some of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield just a minute? 

Mr. FILNER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to ask you a question. This may be 

a question you are going to ask because you just—— 

Mr. FILNER. Please. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was JPMorgan Chase the company that you actually got your loan through or was your loan sold to them? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. My loan was sold to them, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. FILNER. And we don’t know if they sold that to somebody 

else, right? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. No, sir. 

Mr. FILNER. I doubt if they owned it, but we will see when they 

come here. 

I just want to again thank the counsel. You have made some 

very important and specific recommendations for us. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FILNER. I think you gave us a lot of guidance. It is some of 

the best testimony I have ever heard here because you told us what 

we need to do. 

By the way, if we increase the penalties, and I agree with you, 

can they refuse to handle loans in such a situation so they will 

never be subject to punishment. Do we have to do something about 

that too? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, I mean I think obviously they don’t have 

to as we know now they don’t loan to people they don’t want to 

loan to, they don’t modify if they don’t want to. 

You know, I believe there are honest, well meaning, good people. 

Many of the small banks are modifying loans. 

Mr. FILNER. Right, the small banks. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. The small banks are doing it. I mean they are not driven by the $100 million bonuses, so the marketplace is a 

wonderful place, and I think it will be—if they don’t want to loan 

money because they think they may be violating a Federal law and 

go the jail for it then they shouldn’t be in the banking business. 

Mr. FILNER. But we may have to say something for an activeduty application to be creditworthy with a lender. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, that is certainly within your purview. 

Mr. FILNER. I just am afraid that they will just take the path of 

least resistance and not give loans at all. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, remember these folks under the law buy 

these houses before they go in. 

Mr. FILNER. I see. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. So they are not active duty at that time. 

Mr. FILNER. Okay. That’s good. 

I really do appreciate your recommendations and I appreciate 

your persistence and your courage for the Rowleses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We will take questions 

from Members who were here as the gavel went down. So Mr. 

Lamborn, you are first. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your service to our country, Captain Rowles and to Ms. Rowles, 

thank you for your sacrifices. You make sometimes just as many 

sacrifices as a spouse and mother and wife that your husband does, 

so we appreciate that. 

I guess for Mr. Harpootlian, to make sure that this kind of thing 

doesn’t happen again you said on the SCRA that you think the 

criminal penalty should be increased. Should there be anything 

else on the civil side that should be done as well? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Sure. Right, I mean the criminal penalties 

need to be increased and Congress all the time passes mandatory 

minimums for somebody that makes $100 off some crack. I suggest 

that you need to look at the criminal penalties here as if they were 

selling crack. 

As to civil penalties I think they need to be increased, and I have 

said that if they voluntarily report that they may get some credit 

for that so they are not under a—I mean this thing has been going 

on at Chase for 5 or 6 years at least, and we submit—we haven’t 

done any discovery in our case, it is stayed pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision on private cause of action—but we submit that obviously somebody with the kind of calls they were getting and dozens 

of other people were getting and the complaints they were making 

had to work its way up to somewhere, and those folks need to understand they have an exposure to going to jail. 

I was a State prosecutor for 12 years. Let me tell you something, 

anybody wearing a white collar thinks about that before they violate the law, and if you have a sanction that sends that message 

I think the banking industry will look at what they do or are doing 

when they get a complaint and try to correct it immediately rather 

than sitting on it for 5 or 6 years. 

As to civil, again, I think they need to be increased to half a million dollars, and you need to give—if this were not a class action, 

an incentive for somebody to represent the Captain or people like 

him on an individual case by awarding attorney—or allowing a 

court to award attorneys’ fees if they find it to be appropriate. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And I am not wanting to make any comment on 

the ongoing action, you know, the courts will sort that out as this 

action goes forward, I am just talking about prospectively. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Yeah. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Absolutely. And Bill Harvey and I have talked 

about this at great length that prospectively there are a lot of 

things that can be done and where we are in a case that is pending 

in court waiting for the Fourth Circuit to decide whether the 

amendments you all made last year indicating there is a private 

cause of action are only prospective or just a clarification. That is 

pending in the Fourth Circuit right now. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And Mr. Harvey, would you have anything else to 

add before I close on the civil side of things? You have spoken eloquently about what you think should be happening on the criminal 

side of the statute. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Mr. HARVEY. Well, the penalties on the civil side we believe need 

to be increased. So many people—you read JPMorgan Chase’s 

statement where the average damage is $70 that they are sending 

back. Seventy dollars really doesn’t incentivize many attorneys to 

handle a private cause of action case such as us. 

If you increase the civil penalties, you increase the attorneys’ 

fees, I think it would help people like the Rowleses be able to prosecute their own rights. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Now and for either one of you, my understanding 

from practicing law years ago is that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act doesn’t allow creditors to call in the middle of the night 

or keep calling when someone says please don’t call me again. 

There are remedies already in law right there, including Colorado. 

Prospectively does this statute need work on that front as well? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, of course we brought a class action and 

Congress for whatever reason limited class actions to a gross of 

$500,000 per class. Now individually you could do that and you can 

get attorneys’ fees for that if they violate the Fair Debt Collection 

Act. But in this context if there are 5,000 of them out there it 

would be, you know, $100 a piece in damages under the Fair Debt 

Collection Act. And we are looking at that, but our case is stayed 

and we need to see what the Fourth Circuit says about the private 

cause of action under this Act. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you gentlemen. Once again thank 

you for your service. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member for having this hearing today. 

I have a couple of questions. Mrs. Rowles, you mentioned that 

you have had several conversations with JPMorgan. After your several conversations, have you ever talked to anyone in management, 

and if so what was their response? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Thank you, sir, that is a wonderful question. 

And yes, we have tried numerous times to speak with anybody in 

management. There were occasions where we were told we were 

speaking with management, and to our surprise, management did 

not know how to fix our problem either. 

Jonathan and I traveled to Colorado from South Carolina briefly 

right before he deployed in July because we thought we found a 

mortgage branch manager that said he could help us. And after sitting with him for hours on two different dates, he threw up his 

hand in the air and said I have no clue how to fix your situation, 

there is nothing I can do, sorry. And that was pretty much the consensus of every manager we spoke with. 

I would spend hours trying to find people that actually would 

talk to us and that would not just write down our name and number and say that they would call us back. We have spoken with 

managers in South Carolina to Texas to California, nobody knew 

how to fix our problem. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay, thank you. 

For the attorney, it seems hard to believe that JPMorgan is the 

only bank that is doing this. Are you aware of any other institutions that are doing this? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, there have been news reports of, I 

think, other institutions. And your last witness today from Louisiana will explain. He is suing a whole lot of banks on a whole lot 

of these violations. 

So we have been focused on our case which is Chase, because, 

you know, I am a three-man law firm, Bill is a small law firm, we 

are taking on a behemoth so we are keeping our eye on the ball. 

But again, your last witness today a gentleman from Louisiana 

is suing a bunch of them and I think he can tell you in chapter 

and verse who is doing what. But it seems to be an industrywide— 

and that is why I talk about this corporate citizenship—there is no 

sense of them having any patriotism. I mean these folks don’t care 

about, or at least they exhibit no care about, our fighting men and 

women, and I deem that to be unpatriotic. 

So if you are going to get the rights of free speech, which they 

were given by the Supreme Court, you should have the responsibility of supporting this country when it is in need. 

And by the way, when the banks needed help, everybody here 

helped them, everybody here helped them, and now these folks 

need them. They have enough to give them the help and now our 

fighting men and women need help and they are saying we are 

sorry we are going to give you back the money plus seven and a 

half percent interest, no harm, no foul, and that ain’t enough. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Another question, and I don’t know if it is hard 

to prove, but when you look at the fact that suicide rates among 

our active military personnel have increased dramatically because 

of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also if you look 

at some of the concerns that those who have committed suicide a 

lot of it actually deals with financial issues and problems at home. 

My question to you is since Citizens United gave, you know, their 

rights to, you know, corporations, and since I am pretty—well, I 

don’t know for sure—but you probably could assume that some of 

those suicides have been because of financial problems that could 

ultimately have led to banks such as JPMorgan and others doing 

what they have done to our fine men and women who are wearing 

the uniform, is there any—is this—can you comment on that as far 

as suicides? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, I know this from talking to dozens of 

military men and women that called me and Bill after The Today 

Show ran the initial spot. Everyone of them had a story. I know 

I talked to one guy who was in Afghanistan calling the bank because his wife couldn’t get any answers. Using—and they get—I 

mean I am not in the military, but they get a card with so many 

minutes that they can call home on. Sarah Letts-Smith, one of the 

plaintiffs here, in Iraq having to use the time she ought to be talking to her husband and four kids to call home. Now Sarah is a 

tough cookie, but she even was brought to tears when she talked 

about this. 

So does it have an emotional impact? No question about it. Is 

that what you want somebody that is in an F–18 over Afghanistan 

or over Iraq, is that—you want them worried about that, that kind 

of pressure or is it patrolling Afghanistan or one of the other spots 

that we are in is? Is that what you want them focused on? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

I am not a psychiatrist, but I will tell you every one of these 

folks, and I mean Sarah and Jon are very stoic here this morning, 

but when you talk to them about what they went through, and 

these are tough people and it brings them to tears. 

So I think it has an emotional impact, I think it is deleterious 

to our ability to win. I mean if you get it down to brass tacks. You 

don’t want these folks worried about is the wife and kids going to 

be on the street as Sarah Letts-Smith found out. They evicted and 

threw her family on the street, foreclosed her house. The Act is 

clear they could not do that. They violated. Chase did that. And 

they have said they have given or rectified it with 12 people; 12. 

We know now there is maybe 15 to 20. All these folks went through 

hell. 

And again, whether it caused suicides or not I don’t know, what 

I do know is when you are a weapons officer on an F–18 and you 

are flying in dangerous situations you want to be focused on that 

and not about whether your pregnant wife at home who is having 

a baby and getting calls at 3 o’clock in the morning from collection 

people is going to be thrown out on the street. 

I mean it is simple. And that is what the Act is about and this 

Committee has spoken clearly about that last year and every year. 

I mean as I have said in my statement historically going back to 

the 1919, 1918, this Congress has made it clear they don’t want 

that to happen, it is happening, and there is only one reason for 

it, greed. 

So I encourage you to take the action to make sure that there 

is a consequence for that kind of conduct. 

Mr. HARVEY. And Congressman, if I may add, Congressman Filner spoke about modifications, loan modifications. A lot of times 

these servicemen and women, they are on their second and third 

tour, the value of the house has gone down, they need a modification. They go to these banks, you know, they are getting paid fighting wages instead of their wages that they can earn at home and 

yet the banks turn them down almost categorically for modifications. 

This Committee might consider something to do with loan modifications for active servicemen and women. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Benishek, do you have a question? 

Mr. BENISHEK. Yes, I do. I understand you went to the court or 

the legal assistance that you had through the Marines? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Yes, sir, every Marine is afforded 

the opportunity to meet and talk with lawyers about various legal 

situations at the base they are at. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Did they seem to understand this bill here that 

afforded you this protection, and do they offer the services of contacting the banks for you? I mean it seems to me you started with 

these people and they didn’t help you, then you had to contract 

your own lawyers to work it out. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Yes, sir. We presented all the evidence that we had there in 2008 to the lawyers at my duty station, 

and I just don’t think it was in their lane, sir, and they didn’t know 

a lot about the intricacies of it. And I had explained what I had 

been doing with letters and phone calls and searching for various 

people, and at that time they believed that was about all I could 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

do. And so for a good while I continued to believe that that was 

all I could do, but I continued to make the phone calls and letters 

anyway until they—Chase threatened to affect my credit at which 

point—which is a big deal when you hold a security clearance—and 

that is when I took action to seek private counsel. 

Mr. BENISHEK. All right. It just seems to me that there should 

be some method through the military in order to obtain your rights 

through their counsel. I am just a little bit chagrined that you had 

to, you know, suffer through this prolonged process on your own 

basically. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, sir, the problem is the military counsel, 

they are not really in the business of suing people or—I mean that 

is what you—I mean ultimately the only way you are going to 

make them do the right thing is sue them. 

In the Marine Corps, Judge Advocate General (JAG) folks, that 

is not what they do, and the Justice Department now is somebody 

that could do that, but are they going to do that over a, how much 

was it Bill, average? 

Mr. HARVEY. Seventy dollars. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Seventy dollars, no. So, I mean these things 

fall through the cracks. And I can tell you these are very educated, 

very sophisticated, as is Sarah Letts-Smith, they knew their rights 

and they pursued them. There is a bunch of folks out there that 

never claimed it because they didn’t understand it. 

So I would suggest that what could happen, I mean a simple 

thing like a Web site, and Sarah and I talked about it the other 

night, where you could go on and say I am getting deployed, this 

is what I have, what can I do? And have a—you don’t need it at 

a base, you need a national—somebody that is up to speed on it 

that can answer questions on a help line. I mean if my Apple computer breaks, I get help real quick. I don’t know why our military 

folks can’t get that same kind of help. And this Committee would 

do something about that. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. McNerney. 

And also I would like to add that we will have testimony from 

the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in a couple of minutes. One 

with a brand new program that I hope will shed some light on 

what DoD is doing now to help provide this information to our 

servicemen and women. 

Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Miller. First I want to congratulate you on your elevation to Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I look forward to working with you on these 

issues in the next few years. 

I want to thank Captain and Mrs. Rowles for your service to our 

country. You volunteered, you didn’t get drafted, and that just 

speaks a lot about what your intentions are for our country. 

My first question has to do with when did these banks know that 

they were violating law? I mean did they know or is there a difference between what the large banks know and what the small 

banks know? Or were they just ignorant and wanted to remain ignorant or where was this coming from? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, I think you can get a chance in just a 

few minutes to ask Chase about that, and perhaps they will tell 

you. They are not under oath so they will tell you what they think 

happened. 

I have read their statement, which is oh, you know, stuff happens. So I don’t know. 

If this lawsuit is allowed to go forward, I can guarantee you we 

are going to find out. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I mean they were informed—— 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Five years ago in this case. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. They were informed repeatedly. 

Mr. HARVEY. Constantly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you really can’t claim ignorance after being 

informed year after year, phone call after phone call. Well, right, 

we have to see what happens in the lawsuit. 

Were there any of your clients that are facing repercussions in 

their crediting rates and their careers with regard to this? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. All of them. Sarah Letts-Smith has a security 

clearance, she is a lieutenant colonel in military intelligence. She 

cannot get a car loan now. She cannot get any credit whatsoever. 

She has a terrible credit report and that poses serious threats to 

her security clearance. So—and you just heard from the Captain 

the same thing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So I mean this is affecting the whole spectrum 

of your life. Your ratings, your career, the whole bit. 

Mr. HARVEY. And I spoke with Martin Hupfl who is one of the 

named plaintiffs about his auto loan. He went to buy a car last 

week and could not get an auto loan and they cited Chase’s closing 

down of his—and reporting his prior auto loan which they closed 

down while he was in basic training at Parris Island. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is Chase able to take back this damage in any 

way or are you stuck with it? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Oh, we hope so. We hope so. We hope both of 

the criminal side and on the civil side. But again, we are pretty 

early in this process. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So the lawsuit may be the sort of tool to educate 

these lenders that there are laws that they need to comply with. 

Mr. HARVEY. Unfortunately lawsuits tend to be that way. The 

only thing that gets their attention. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, I will say this, and that is why I talk 

about these criminal penalties, you know, if you are on the wrong 

side of that razor wire that is a lesson you never forget, and I 

would suggest increasing the penalties and encouraging the Department of Justice to be aggressive and prosecuting. 

Under the current law, it is a misdemeanor and you can go to 

jail for a year. Put somebody in jail, then banks will stop doing it. 

As long as it is a debit or a credit on a balance sheet it is a risk 

whether you are buying securitized loans or whether you are risking getting caught doing this, it is just a risk as long as it is a financial problem, a financial risk. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I mean there is bound to be a lot of servicemembers that are facing this and not bringing—— 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. I mean there is bound to be. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. Thousands. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Tens of thousands, there is bound to be. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN [continuing]. We believe so. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, especially people from the National Guard 

that have jobs and expect to have a certain pay and then get pulled 

into service. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Again, Sarah Letts-Smith was in the Reserves, she had a great job, her husband had a great job, she gets 

activated, goes to Iraq, her firm that she worked for had less than 

50 employees, they fired her, her husband lost his job, and then, 

you know, she is over there trying to fight to keep them in their 

home, and you know, winning the military battle, but losing the 

fight at home. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So I mean I was going to ask what took so long 

for Chase to recognize this problem? But it seems to me like—— 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. We brought a lawsuit, that is what got 

them—this complaint we understand is what started the process. 

Captain Rowles came forward, a complaint went to the Justice Department, and we filed a lawsuit. 

Captain Rowles is responsible for everything that has happened 

as a result of the attention that has been given. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, and of course Chase is the only one that 

is stepping forward at this point in time; is that correct? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. We pushed them. They are not stepping anywhere. They had a big nudge. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. They are being pulled forward. So all the other 

lenders are out there in this bliss that they have and not being 

made to pay the price yet. 

Mr. HARVEY. Well, we hope that they are listening to you all and 

what we are doing here. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Well, our line has been drawn. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And so the Committee knows we have reached out to the American Bankers Association (ABA) and will help in educating as best 

we can, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are here because 

of what has happened in the past and your line of questioning is 

right on target and I thank you. 

We have a Member who would like to speak out of order because 

they need to go to another hearing. Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me commend 

you and the Ranking Member for this hearing. This is very good. 

I guess we should clear the air here and point out that 

JPMorgan Chase got $25 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(TARP) funds, so for them to settle for a mere pittance of $2 million based upon, you know, not even providing economic damages 

to these people, not providing pain and suffering damages, not to 

mention what they did was illegal, I guess my question for the 

counsel is, under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which 

maybe it has already been asked, were these military people aware 

of this Act? Was Chase aware of this Act? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, all these folks had to send the orders, 

the ones that are members of the class, the 4,000 or 5,000, whatever today’s number is—we heard several different numbers—in 

our class action had to send in the orders, had to ask for protection 

to be a member of the class. So they were aware. 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. And Chase got their orders and got to documents, so they were aware. 

Mr. STEARNS. In your estimation just off the record, do you think 

there are other institutions, financial institutions besides Chase 

that are doing this? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, in a moment you are going to hear 

again from this gentleman from Louisiana, an attorney down there 

that is suing, we talked this morning, Bank of America, a number 

of other financial institutions, he has individual cases and may 

very well have class action cases, so it is based on what he tells 

me rampant. 

Mr. STEARNS. Is Goldman Sachs included in that list? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. You will have to ask him. 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay, okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I think at some point it would probably be useful 

for you and the Ranking Member, and I would be glad obviously 

to sign on for a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit 

of this problem or bring some kind of Inspector General here, 

which I think would corroborate all this information, but also give 

it an official overlay which the counsel could use based upon that 

information. I think that would be helpful for you wouldn’t it? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yeah, so I would recommend at your earliest convenience we send that letter out and get this investigation started. 

I will just conclude and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing 

me to speak. I have to go to another meeting. 

Obviously, everybody in this room is appalled and outraged by 

what happened to these military people. I think that is why many 

of use serve on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee because we care 

so much for our servicemen and women and know the sacrifice they 

are making, and so I am very glad to lend my support to this investigation and just express my outrage of what happened. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too would like 

to congratulate you on assuming the chair. Your commitment to 

veterans has been unquestioned and unwavering and your ability 

to work with everyone on both sides of the aisle is well known also, 

so thank you for holding this hearing. 

To the Rowleses, you are not going to get enough ‘‘sorries’’ in 

this, and that doesn’t cut it. What you have gone through, and I 

think Ms. Rowles you brought up a very good point on this is, the 

harassment that comes on birthdays and things like that, this is 

your life. 

And Mr. Harpootlian brought up, I think, the key issue on this 

is this Act wasn’t passed to give some type of bonus or a lottery 

to servicemembers, it was meant to make sure you could focus on 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

your job while defending this Nation without the worries back 

home. 

I have been waiting years for something like this to happen because I have been screaming about it. As a senior enlisted soldier 

with a deployed unit who spent weeks dealing with these things 

and it is not just houses, it started out with cars, it moved to 

leases, and I will tell you the hardest one was cell phone contracts. 

No, I don’t need that contract anymore I am in Iraq so I would like 

to cancel it early without the penalty. Oh, no, oh, no, you are going 

to pay the full amount for that. 

I, too, have expressed great outrage on this because of the hardship it puts on the family. If the spouse at home is unhappy, our 

National defense is degraded from it. I have seen it every time it 

happens and it is absolutely unacceptable. So thank you for bringing this up. 

A couple things I want to focus on and I want to avoid the gross 

generalization, but I think the Chairman brought up a good point, 

there are some great learning opportunities here, there is also a lot 

of learning opportunity on tort reform that we are talking about 

and I hope we start thinking about that in terms of what tort reform of stopping this individual’s right to get just compensation 

when they are wronged needs to be toned down, and gross generalization of tort reform needs to happen, it is out of control. Well, you 

have a constitutional right to be here and we need to get this right. 

My question to you, and it was brought up by Mr. McNerney, I 

am very, very concerned for your military career because I know 

as a senior enlisted person how bad this can damage you. Have you 

felt the repercussions? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. No, sir, my command has been very 

supportive of this. The most—the scariest part of this entire thing 

was when I received the letter that this could go to collections. 

Mr. WALZ. Yes. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. And as everyone knows in this room 

collections effect a security clearance. 

Mr. WALZ. That is right. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. And my job requires a security is 

clearance. If I don’t have that, I can’t fly and my career is wasted. 

Mr. WALZ. I have seen careers ended because of the issue. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. And it happens all the time unfortunately. 

My next question went with that chain of command and we 

heard about it and I think Mr. Harpootlian brought up a great 

point on where the JAG office can help in all those things. 

I, as a senior enlisted soldier, was well versed on this as early 

as 2004 after the Soldiers and Sailor’s Civil Relief Act was modified 

to servicemembers. We were well versed on this so I was on the 

phone a lot. The frustration I had that you had was that I was far 

more well versed than the lenders on the other end. But I got to 

the point after a while was that claiming ignorance wasn’t good 

enough, that there was knowledge on the other side. 

My question to you is, is your chain of command well versed in 

this? Do you think they did everything they could? And I am not 

sure as a captain who did you go to? Did the sergeant major do 

anything or is it through the JAG office? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Well, sir, I went through several different commands during this 5-year period. Quantico, Pensacola, 

San Diego, and I visited with the JAG officer in Pensacola just to 

get a feel of what my rights would be, and every chain of command 

that I have expressed this with has been supportive. I have asked 

them for letters of proof and so I could further what the banks 

were asking for at the time, and every chain of command has been 

supportive of that. Although I don’t think they are all well versed 

as we are now. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I am going to ask a question, Mrs. Rowles this 

might be you. Did you ever talk to someone on the phone who was 

a veteran? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. No, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. It would be a lot easier wouldn’t it if they understood 

what an order looks like, if they understood what a new station of 

duty meant and all of those things? Has there been any efforts on 

the bank to maybe hire some people like an ombudsman that was 

actually a veteran that would understand what you are talking 

about? Have you ever had—— 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. I sure would hope so. It would make it, sir, 

on our behalf, a lot easier talking with these people knowing we 

move all the time. We have in the past 5 years, we have been at 

four duty stations. Every time we have had to send different orders 

in, and half the time they have lost them. 

Mr. WALZ. Yeah. 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. So it is a problem that they don’t even know 

what SCRA is. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I appreciate it, and I am going to leave this for 

the next one because I know the Chairman is very responsive to 

this. There is a whole other can of worms here as Mr. McNerney 

mentioned with the National Guard, because it gets into the sticky 

point of when you established the loan, when you got deployed 

were you already in the service? Yes, but I was National Guard, 

now I am on Title 10, now it changes my status, and the banks are 

going by a strict letter of the law denying some of those things instead of the spirit of the law. 

A National Guardsman deployed for 22 months is on active duty 

for 22 months, but they are getting out of this by saying you established the loan when you were only part-time, you weren’t on Title 

10, and that is something the attorneys—a whole other can of 

worms. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Colonel Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all as a 26-plus 

year veteran myself, I echo what my colleague Mr. Michaud and 

Mr. McNerney said, few people can relate to the sacrifices emotionally, physically, otherwise that military members go through and 

their father and mother families, and on behalf of the grateful Nation, I want to apologize to you for what you have gone through. 

Just a couple of quick questions. What was the over all time 

frame? Maybe I missed it earlier. From when this first started till 

now. How long has this been going on? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. This has been going on since 2006, 

sir. I was a commissioned officer on March 31st of 2006, I first 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

stepped on the yellow footprints January 22nd there in Quantico. 

Shortly after I completed OCS after March, I sent in my orders, at 

which time I was at the Basic School (TBS) in Quantico. That took 

about 4 months because I kept getting letters saying please reverify or I would get a statement that had an outrageous amount 

that I knew from experience as a financial manager before I joined 

the Marine Corps was not right, and I would call to question about 

it and I would get the run around, but then I couldn’t continue to 

pursue it because then I would have to go to the field for a week 

and then I would have to come back and start the entire process 

over again of re-verifying or calling somebody and I would get 

somebody else, and that has pretty much been the story since 2006, 

sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Earlier you indicated, ma’am, that you had talked 

to people in management. What level of management? And were 

any of these conversations in person or were they over the phone? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Sir, yes. Most of them were over the phone; 

however, I do not know the level of management, but we did fly 

to Colorado to visit with one mortgage branch manager that would 

actually sit down and schedule a meeting with us. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So did anyone ever give you a business card that 

identified them as a vice president or a director or anyone like 

that? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. No, manager was all we got. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Are you getting any help with your legal 

fees now from the Act itself? I confess that I don’t know what the 

Act provides, but are you getting any help at this point? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. There is no provision for attorneys’ fees in the 

Act. Mr. Harvey and I are doing this on a contingency fee. If there 

is a private cause of action we will be able to recover something 

for the class and take a percentage of that, which would have to 

be approved by a court. Judge Margaret Seymour in South Carolina is handling this case, a district court judge, so she would have 

to approve a fee. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. But there is no provision. That is one of the 

things we talk about under 18 U.S.C. 1983—or 21 U.S.C. 1983 

cause of action. You can get attorneys’ fees in addition to recovering your damages. The idea being if the damages are so small, 

and in these cases they may very well be, you want to incentivize 

an attorney to get involved you give them the opportunity to get 

attorneys’ fees. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. Well, I want to applaud what the Chairman 

said earlier, we are going to get an opportunity to question the Department of Defense. 

I would like to just clarify as a veteran, and I am sure you know 

this too, Captain Rowles, that the legal department within the military, they are not permitted by law to represent us in civil cases, 

and so it is not maybe that they didn’t want to, it is that they are 

prohibited from doing so. They can advise and I am glad to see that 

you did get advice. Are there ways to improve that, perhaps. 

I would just like to point out that, you know, Mr. McNerney 

asked, you know, do small banks know more or less than the big 

banks do? JPMorgan Chase is not a small bank. They have big 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

money as was pointed out in TARP. They posted a 47 percent profit 

surge on January 15th, a $4.3 billion profit surge. I think you 

pointed out the need for increased criminal penalties. Obviously 

these folks don’t understand dollars and cents very well, so maybe 

criminal penalties would help in that regard. 

And Captain Rowles, I want to tell you, if your security clearance 

is impacted by this I want to know because you will get a letter 

of reference from me to somebody. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield back, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the Chairman, and with my thanks to Captain and Mrs. Rowles I will yield my time for questioning and 

thereby I waive opportunity and to let the other Members of the 

Committee have the time. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

think all of us have thanked Captain Rowles and Mrs. Rowles already and I want to as well, but I also want to do something unusual and thank the lawyers. I was able to eke out a living for 

about 20 years as a lawyer before fortunately enough I was elected 

to Congress and got a city paycheck. 

But I can imagine when the Rowleses were first sitting in your 

office this case did not look like a moneymaker, and I from time 

to time took cases with very uncertain damages, very uncertain 

law, economically bad decisions to take the case because the facts 

that presented themselves just offended my sense of justice, and I 

think lawyers taking cases like that are a service to the profession 

and a service to the public, so I appreciate your pursuing this claim 

on behalf of the Rowleses and so many others 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. I did handle or introduce legislation a couple years ago to ensure a private cause of action because there were at that point a variety of cases around the country that went different ways on whether there was a private cause 

or action or not, and the compensatory damages seem to be unclear, the availability of punitive damages seem to be unclear. 

There was no provision for attorneys’ fees as you have pointed out. 

I think there is a pretty good argument under ordinary statutory 

construction principals that there should be compensatory damages, there should be punitive damages. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Right. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. But remedies matter. What 

you can do about it if you have been wronged really does matter, 

and my clear impression at the time is that some of the banks 

knew full well that they were pursuing legal proceedings against 

people who were deployed, that that was in clear violation of the 

law, and they looked at what the servicemember could do about it 

and thought—made a calculation and decided to go forward, and 

punitive damages is supposed to get at that kind of conduct. And 

good luck with continuing this litigation. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Remedies are frequently an 

issue in any kind of legislation. You can fight and fight and fight 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

over what the law requires and then you have to have a second 

fight about what you can do about it when they have been 

wronged, if their rights under that statute have been violated. 

Frequently the interest groups that are likely to end up as defendants in those suits fight any kind of or a provision that says 

there can be no class actions. 

Would this lawsuit—would any lawyer have brought this lawsuit 

if there was a prohibitional class action? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Absolutely not. I mean it is one thing to make 

the calculation you may not get anything because courts are deciding it, it is another thing to try to recover $700 from a big bank 

and litigate that. You wouldn’t even be in Federal court, you 

wouldn’t have the discovery mechanisms that you have in Federal 

court, it would be a—it is a no brainer. You wouldn’t—I mean you 

could try it, but you wouldn’t get anywhere with it. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Well, my quick calculation is 

that either you have a 40 percent contingency fee that would be 

$280, that wouldn’t take you real far. 

And second, attorneys’ fees, what role do you think attorneys’ 

fees will have as a deterrent? It is not just about compensating people who have been wronged, it is about deterring the conduct in the 

first place. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, let me let Mr. Harvey answer that, because you talked about how small these claims are. 

Mr. HARVEY. Well, the claims are very small. Captain Rowles 

came into my office, I looked at it and the first thing I did was contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office because I went and did some research and I found that the Department of Justice had made this 

a priority, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Carolina has 

been very helpful with regard to pursuing this on their behalf from 

their standpoint. 

But from the standpoint of attorneys’ fees it would have been 

very difficult—very difficult for me to bring a private cause of action for Captain Rowles alone in Federal court had it not been for 

the ability to pursue this as a class action. It would have been very 

difficult to bring it as a single claim. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. You had said that you 

really focused your attention on Chase, not all of the banks, but 

there had been litigation, there has been litigation, there have been 

news reports, this is in fact a common problem and not just with 

Chase. And other banks I know that you have said that Chase 

didn’t jump to do the right thing, they got pushed, and you were 

the one doing the pushing. Again thank you. But there have been 

some other banks that have just brazened it out. 

What can we do to distinguish between the kind of remedies that 

are available for a bank that maybe makes an innocent mistake 

but then fixes it when it is called to their attention and those who 

just brazen it out as has been the case with Georgia Bank in other 

litigations? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, we suggest in the statement that folks 

that self-report be dealt with in a different way, and that is very 

common in virtually every other kind of civil or even criminal. To 

determine whether there is criminal conduct there has to be willfulness. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

So if they find it, they catch it, and they do something about it 

quickly they shouldn’t be subjected to criminal or any significant 

civil penalties; however, Mr. Odom, who you are going to hear from 

in just a little while who practices in Shreveport has dealt with five 

or six banks and he will be I think your last witness today, you 

need to ask him about the other banks. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for 

the time and for being able to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

serve with you. We know it is going to be a challenge, but we have 

to fight for these men and women that fight so hard for us. 

And with that Captain Rowles, thank you for your dedication 

and your service to this country and I sincerely apologize to you, 

your wife, and the rest of your family for having to go through this, 

because it is not something—it is not a pressure you need on you 

or your family especially in the high intensity situations you volunteered to put yourself through. 

I think we all share the same concerns with SCRA and quite 

frankly the reason you are here. 

I really want to ask a question that really says I know we talked 

about, you know, maybe starting a Web site or you know having 

a veteran around that can actually answer these questions. 

Going through your experience what do you think is the best way 

to really get this out there and make this aware? Because you said 

you obviously said you were told in Officer Candidate School that 

it was there, but obviously there is not a lot of people aware of it. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Sir, I believe that education first 

right, when they reach the schools, you know, the recruits or the 

candidates that is a great place to start because you reach everyone 

right then. You are not going miss a single one who doesn’t go 

through the military, who is not going to go through some sort of 

basic training. 

But I also believe that there should be a sustainment to that because you are hose fed through basic training, you do get a lot of 

classes and a lot of times, you know, you are sleep deprived because that is how they break you down and build you up to make 

you a Marine or a sailor or a soldier. 

The sustainment should come from what I believe, sir, is the 

sustainment should come from within the commands and from 

within the representatives themselves, the family readiness officers. Each command has one from my experience in the Marine 

Corps and I just believe that it is an education mind set where we 

push more information to the family readiness officers because they 

are the ones who can contact the wives, the families when we are 

in the field, when we are in the air, when we are deployed, and 

to make them more aware of this, because every soldier, sailor, Marine doesn’t want to worry about finances, but they worry about 

back home, and the Family Readiness Counselor (FRO) has that 

kind of contact, the family readiness officers. 

So if we can educate them more about these benefits then I believe that that will trigger not only the memory from basic training, but it will also create that sustainment to continue those benefits throughout your military career. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

Mr. RUNYAN. Well, from your personal experience does that conversation to that family readiness counselor continually happen or 

is it just something that, you know, obviously in your situation you 

will have other servicemembers that are colleagues of yours that 

you can direct toward that, but was that pathway open for you at 

all? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. The pathway to the family readiness 

officer is quite open. They all have offices within the commands, 

which is why I think it should maintain within the command because you are a tight knit group, and as we all know, information 

passes through a tight knit group very easily. So if one person contacts the FRO and she gets in that 6 percent before they deploy I 

guarantee you that ever single other lance corporal or sergeant or 

whatever will be talking about that within 24 hours around their 

commands. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And kind of down that same line of questioning 

now moving to the family aspect, you know, is there anything you 

can say to other families facing similar situations on how to, you 

know, you have the family readiness counselor there, but how to 

tackle it even further if nothing is happening? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. I believe it would be tough for every 

single person to run to the bank and say these are my rights, because everyone is so busy and everybody wants to keep their personal finances close because we are strong and prideful and we 

don’t want to admit we need help. 

But to go further I think if—it could be easier to go to the banks 

and simply say I am a servicemember and I am being deployed 

next month and for the banks to know the SCRA so well that they 

can say, okay, great, we are going do this, this, this, and this for 

you, thank you very much for your service, have a great day, and 

then for that to happen it would make things so much easier for 

the servicemembers instead of this piece of paperwork here and 

this piece of paperwork here and this procedure here and oh, please 

re-verify this, and you need a letter from your command. 

If the banks were so aware of SCRA protections that you could 

just walk in and say here are my deployment orders and for everything to be settled I think that would be best, sir. 

Mr. HARVEY. And as we have seen the only way to do that is to 

have an enforcement arm that gets their attention. That is the only 

way they are going to do what Captain Rowles has suggested. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Well, I thank you guys for your time and I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Donnelly. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want to say 

what a pleasure it is to have you as our Chairman. I have had the 

honor to serve with you for a number of years and your only focus 

has been what can we do to help our veterans, so I think you are 

going to do a great job and I am honored to have the chance to 

serve on this Committee with you. 

I want to start off by saying thank you so much Captain and 

Mrs. Rowles for your service to this country, to the fellows who are 

with you for helping them out with these changes. The last thing 

you need Captain or you need Mrs. Rowles when you are fighting 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

for our country and you are trying to hold everything together back 

home is to have to deal with these things. 

And so one of the questions I have for you Mrs. Rowles is your 

support group when these calls would come in and when you would 

have them badger you, did you have any list or idea of who to contact to try to get some help from? You know there are folks on the 

base, but when you have to fly out to Colorado to try to get this 

straightened out, you are raising a family, you are trying to hold 

a house together, you are trying to take care of your husband’s 

phone calls and dealings, and then you have to go to Colorado, it 

is how much can you put in a bushel basket before it all pours 

over? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Sir, there has been a lot of stressful times 

with this, and the funny thing is, is that Chase has admitted to 

us that we have done nothing wrong, but still from years and years 

of harassment there is still not even small problems they have not 

rectified. 

It has been almost a year since we have received a mortgage 

statement from Chase, even though we continuously pay our mortgage. They still have not cashed our January mortgage payment. 

We are here talking about the problem, but yet it doesn’t seem like 

even for us that they want to fix small things. 

But myself there is no—besides family there is not a large support system, because everybody’s finances in the military, everybody has different mortgage companies, everybody has different 

credit cards, there is no avenue for—to fix any of these problems. 

Mr. DONNELLY. For you to go to an office there and say—— 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. There is no—no. 

Mr. DONNELLY [continuing]. Here is what they are doing to me. 

Here are the hassles they are giving me. I don’t know how much 

longer I can try to keep holding everything together. There wasn’t 

an office or a place to go to on base? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. No, no. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Okay. 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. No, sir. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Okay. And Captain, I know you have mentioned 

it before, but I would think there is almost nothing worse than sitting there in Iraq and knowing that your family is dealing with 

this and you are being told you may lose your house and you may 

lose everything you worked for. The things you are fighting for and 

protecting are the things they are telling you you may lose in the 

process of fighting for and protecting your country. How did you 

deal with that on a regular basis? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. To tell you the truth, sir, it was difficult. It is definitely a point of friction. Everybody wants to be 

strong and upright and say nothing is wrong, but when you call 

your wife at 2:00 in the morning just to see how things are going 

and you spend 20 minutes talking about how we can send another 

letter or how we can make another phone call or—instead of honey, 

I love you, how was the day, how are the babies, it is rough. 

So you know, you spend your time trying to not worry about 

home, but it is still in the back of your mind when you are fighting, 

yes, sir. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

Mr. DONNELLY. You probably can’t even sleep at night when you 

were dealing with that. 

Did you have anybody in particular at Chase like here is your 

contact, here is the Chase veterans team at any point? 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Sir, actually the number that we were given 

to SCRA was an answering machine. We would leave our name 

and number and they promised to get back with us within 24 

hours; however, as many people know the military is a 24-hour job 

and there would be times where Jon or myself were not around to 

answer a phone call and then the process began over again. Funny 

you try to call that same SCRA number now and it has been disconnected. 

So no, there is no person to call, there is no special servicing department where we can say hey, we are SCRA, help us and funnel 

us to a correct department. We would have to go through the same 

computer prompts that everybody with any Chase mortgage went 

through. 

Some days we actually found somebody who said they were going 

to help us. Apparently there is probably hundreds of pages of 

Chase notes on our account that they said that they have reviewed, 

but Chase did not and to the best of my knowledge currently does 

not have an SCRA mortgage facilitator to handle these problems. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, I also have the privilege of serving on the 

Financial Services Committee, and we promise you this will 

change. 

Mrs. JULIA ROWLES. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Captain and Mrs. Rowles, I wanted to give you an opportunity 

to elaborate a little bit on Mr. Runyan’s good question with regard 

to what advise would you give to other military families that are 

facing this situation, and then approximately how many other families would you say are facing this situation? 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Sir, I would say every single servicemember that deploys or has a loan before they join has this situation. Every single one of us who knows those rights fills out that 

paperwork, and from my experience there has never been a standard form for SCRA. 

The starting point for every single time that I have dealt with 

different banks in my personal experience has been simply to call 

them and say I am an active-duty servicemember about to deploy, 

and each bank has their own way of dealing with it. 

With Chase it was a fax machine only. There was no one to call, 

no one to talk to, it was here is the fax number that you can send 

your things to. I never in my 6—my 5 years dealing with this never 

did I ever speak to an SCRA department member. There was a fax 

machine number that I had written on several statements and that 

was it. 

But when I dealt with other banks I would call them and say I 

am a servicemember and they would say, great, when are you getting back? And on the next statement there was my reductions. 

So each individual bank has their own, in my experience, their 

own way of dealing with it, but with Chase and every single 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

servicemember that deserves these privileges I would say right now 

the process is try and call and find someone, but there is no single 

point to get to. 

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Bilirakis, could you yield for 1 second? I think 

that line of questioning is good, but it seems to me there are two 

responsibilities here. 

One is our military and the other is the banks. I mean is there 

a SCRA representative at the military that you can call? Why 

shouldn’t they also be fighting for you? There is a class here called 

our fighting men and women. I guess we are going to have someone 

from the DoD on the panel, but it seems to me you can’t fight this 

as an individual and the banks know that, why aren’t the Marines 

or DoD fighting for you? 

Is there any SCRA office that we could call? Why shouldn’t they 

be calling the banks? Why should you be dealing with any of this? 

I will leave that in the air because I think legislation would require 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. DoD will be up in just a minute and we will be 

able to ask them that question. 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I will yield back, but I also want to apologize and 

I want to thank you for your service. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Huelskamp. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I will yield my time. I have questions for Chase. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Filner, do you want me to go? We will start the round. I will 

go ahead and allow any other Member. Mr. Michaud, any other 

questions? Any questions on the minority side? Majority side? 

Mr. FILNER. I am looking forward to the next panel. I thank you 

very much for being here. Mr. Harpootlian, are you on Fox by the 

way? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. You guys don’t watch Fox. 

Mr. FILNER. I never watch Fox so I didn’t know how good you 

were. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. I actually do Megan Kelly’s show every Monday at 1:30. 

Mr. FILNER. Well jeez, you are ruining my preconceptions. Mr. 

Chairman, fair and balanced. 

Mr. WALZ. If I could for just 1 minute. This is a question I know 

I sound like a broken record on this, but once again it seems to me 

that Armed Service Committee and the collaboration with the VA 

Committee, that seamless transition might be appropriate on this 

issue, and I know I continue to push that and I know we have 

talked and you share my concerns. 

The CHAIRMAN. I concur. As a Member of the Armed Services 

Committee rest assured this will be brought to their attention as 

well. 

I was going to say, if there are no other questions—— 

Mr. FILNER. I just wanted to finish my thought. 

Again, I think the banks are a disgrace in all this. They are just 

looking—it is not that they aren’t concerned with the figures—they 

have taken a risk and said, hey, nobody is going to bother us with 

this and it is worth it. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

Again, I think our military goes beyond the base family responsibility officer. This is a national issue and this is a national law and 

these are our fighting men and women. The military needs to have 

an office and the military needs to—if the JAGs can’t do it as someone pointed out by law, then somebody else need to. They have a 

$500, $600, $700 billion budget? 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Well, sir, that is a legislative issue and I want 

to make sure that Captain Rowles takes no position on that. 

Mr. FILNER. No, I understand that. I am just saying from our 

perspective—— 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Right. 

Mr. FILNER [continuing]. That—I mean the military should be 

fighting for this and make it clear to the banks. Why are we giving 

them this TARP money? They should be certifying as part of it that 

they understand what SCRA is and that they are going to abide 

by it and take responsibility for it. 

So, I think there are two things here. We need to do what I think 

you recommend about the banks, but I think we have to have the 

military fight for our servicemembers—and not just on this issue. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Right. 

Mr. FILNER. You are facing enormous pressures and we have a 

Pentagon that should be taking this stuff off of your shoulders. 

Captain JONATHAN ROWLES. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Filner, and I appreciate the line 

of questioning. We thank the Rowleses for being here. Mr. 

Harpootlian and Mr. Harvey thank you for being here. 

And we would like to now ask the second panel if they would to 

make their way to the desk. 

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARPOOTLIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our second panel will be one person, Ms. Stephanie Mudick, Executive Vice President of the Office of Consumer 

Practices with JPMorgan Chase, and I appreciate your willingness 

to be here with us today, and without objection your statement will 

also be entered into the record, and you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE B. MUDICK, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF CONSUMER PRACTICES, JPMORGAN 

CHASE & CO., NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. MUDICK. Thank you, Chairman Miller. 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. 

My name is Stephanie Mudick, and I am the head of the Office 

of Consumer Practices at JPMorgan Chase & Co. I am here today 

to discuss errors that Chase discovered in our compliance with the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and what we are doing about 

them. 

The SCRA provides vitally important financial protections to the 

men and women of our armed forces during active duty, a period 

of personal sacrifice for them and their families. 

Before I go further I would like to express to the men and women 

serving our country, and to the Members of this Committee, 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

Chase’s deepest regret over the mistakes we made in applying 

these protections. I commit to you that we will get this right. 

We have identified two problems in our home lending business 

with respect to certain mortgages held by active-duty servicemembers. 

First, in many instances, Chase charged SCRA eligible borrowers 

interest and fees that raised their effective interest rate above the 

6-percent cap. We have begun paying back $2.4 million in overcharges to approximately 4,500 customers. 

Second, to date we have identified 18 servicemembers whom we 

improperly foreclosed upon. In 12 of these cases we have either rescinded the sale or entered into a settlement with the borrower. We 

will attempt to make the remaining borrowers whole as soon as 

possible. Because our review is ongoing, these numbers could 

change. 

With regard to the case of Captain Rowles, we have reviewed the 

history of his account and we clearly made mistakes. The customer 

service that we provided to him and to his wife was unacceptable, 

and the fact that this was a servicemember makes our mistakes all 

the more inexcusable. We deeply regret any hardship we caused 

the Rowles family. 

We have communicated to Captain Rowles through his attorney, 

and actually this morning I met with Captain Rowles and his wife 

briefly, and communicated our commitment to resolve this matter 

and our genuine desire to make him and his family whole as soon 

as possible. 

We have made significant enhancements to our processes to ensure that we comply fully with the SCRA going forward. We have 

centralized SCRA loan set-up in a single unit located in Florence, 

South Carolina, whose members received enhanced SCRA training. 

We have a daily review and reconciliation of the entire list of 

SCRA protected borrowers to ensure they are properly identified in 

our systems. 

The calculation of the 6-percent interest rate cap now is subject 

to 100 percent quality control review every billing cycle, and we 

have implemented enhanced controls on foreclosure referrals and 

sales through repeated checks on military status at different points 

in the process. 

In addition to these enhancements to our controls, we are taking 

steps to better support our servicemember customers. 

We are enhancing our communications with military personnel 

about their SCRA rights. 

Chase currently has a Web page dedicated to military personnel, 

and we plan to provide a prominent link to a Web site recommended by the Department of Defense. We will also send a letter to borrowers whom we believe may be military personnel advising them of the existence of SCRA protections. We would welcome 

the opportunity to work with the government to provide better information to servicemembers about their rights. 

We are following the suggestion of Holly Petraeus of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that we reach out to servicemembers who have Army Post Office or Fleet Post Office addresses 

to ensure that they are aware of their SCRA rights. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

We have created a hotline staffed by 30 Chase employees in 

Monroe, Louisiana, who are trained on SCRA coverage to make 

sure that servicemember customers can work with customer service 

representatives who do understand their unique issues. 

Two people in each of our 51 Chase homeownership centers are 

being trained in SCRA matters so that servicemembers and their 

families can have local access when they wish to speak to a Chase 

representative face to face. By this summer, we will have 76 such 

centers located in 27 States and the District of Columbia, serving 

the vast majority of Chase customers. 

I should note that the SCRA also applies to other types of consumer loans. We are actively reviewing our other businesses to ensure that they too, comply with SCRA. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we are deeply disappointed that we have let down the men and woman of our military. We will work very, very hard to earn back their trust and 

yours, and we are committed to doing so. 

I would be happy to answer questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mudick appears on p. 71.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

You talked about Chase’s deepest regret over the mistakes that 

were made. In those mistakes that were made do you consider how 

it was handled a mistake, the phone calls that were made, the harassment that took place? Does Chase understand with a servicemember how critical a security clearance is and the negative effect 

of not just their credit rating but their employment opportunities 

and opportunities to advance? Does Chase understand these? 

Ms. MUDICK. Mr. Chairman, I think we do understand these 

issues, and we are working very hard to be more and more sensitive to the issues and concerns that our servicemember customers 

have. 

Our focus is really on making sure that we have effective compliance with the Act and we are really trying to make sure that we 

have the proper safeguards. 

The Rowleses’ situation is a situation that we are not proud of, 

and we think that there will be lots of opportunities both to deal 

with the Rowleses and provide them with redress and also to ensure that the enhancements that we have already started to make 

on SCRA compliance really reflect best practices going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. You were here for the testimony of the Rowleses. 

There was a comment about a hotline that had been set up for 

SCRA compliance and the fact that they have called it and now it 

has been disconnected. Do you know anything about that or is that 

the Louisiana hotline up or what happened? 

Ms. MUDICK. I am afraid I don’t know the hotline number that 

they are referring to specifically, but we have recently set up a hotline that is staffed by 30 employees in Monroe who are trained and 

specifically trained in SCRA. We actually do have some former 

members of the military who are part of that staff, and the goal 

is to make sure that there is one place that servicemembers can 

call so that they can explain their concerns and they can get clear 

answers. 

The Rowleses, I think, made very clear today that one of their 

issues was that they felt like they were talking to different service 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

people all the time and had to repeat their story and that is something that we are really trying to fix. 

The CHAIRMAN. What caused your audit and is the audit complete? It has been represented to this Committee that you did not 

begin this self-audit until legal action was threatened. Could you 

expound upon that a little bit? 

Ms. MUDICK. Yes, sir. In the ordinary course of our business we 

routinely audit all elements of our operations and controls across 

all of our businesses, and we do that with SCRA as well as other 

regulations that we are required to comply with. 

We actually did do an audit of our home lending business in 

2008, and during that audit there were some specific issues identified. The business worked on those issues. They tended to be 

around the coding, the correct coding of SCRA accounts, and it was 

not really until the period following the audit that we began to understand that there were other elements of SCRA compliance that 

we needed to look at. 

We actually have made various changes over the last several 

years in terms of our review of SCRA. 

In 2009 we sent out an attorney alert to all of our attorneys to 

make sure they were checking the DoD Web site, because one of 

the things that we recognized was that we were not checking that 

Web site with sufficient consistency or regularity. We started with 

external advisors doing an internal review in 2010. This all predated actually the Rowleses’ lawsuit. 

So I would take exception to Mr. Harpootlian’s comment earlier 

that the only reason why we are looking at this is because we have 

been sued. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell me what the results are so far within your audit and give us some ideas of some of the things that 

Chase is now doing to make families whole? 

Ms. MUDICK. Yes, sir. Our review is ongoing, but I will say that 

we have identified several things that it is very clear we were not 

doing as well as we should have. 

First, we were misreading orders. We were misreading orders 

and not necessarily calculating the period of eligibility correctly, 

and as a result, we were not correctly ascertaining when and how 

the interest rate adjustment should be made, and we were not calculating the aggregate of interest charges and fees below the cap. 

So that was one set of problems that I think reflected the fact 

that we did not have the right people looking at the orders and we 

didn’t have sufficient training. 

So that is one reason why we now have a set up unit that is located in Florence, South Carolina, where we are having a group of 

employees look at every single SCRA request and make sure that 

it is set up correctly. 

We also identified problems with coding. And part of the issue 

here is that much of our execution around making sure we were 

complying with SCRA is manual. So we have employees who are 

making decisions about what the orders say, about what the eligibility period is, about what the right calculations are, and we didn’t 

have a really strong quality control process around that. These are 

human beings. The orders can be very difficult to read; every service has different orders. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

Again, we take full responsibility for misreading them, but we 

really needed to have some checks and balances and we did not 

have sufficient checks and balances in the past. We do have those 

today. 

As a result of incorrect coding—and by coding I mean an account 

is coded SCRA—sometimes the coding fell off the account, and as 

a result of which, we did not get the benefits correct for the servicemembers. 

So again, we now have not only 100 percent quality control, we 

have a daily reconciliation. If any single account falls out of our 

group of SCRA coded accounts, we have several people reviewing 

to understand why and how that fell off and whether it needs to 

be reinstated. 

So you know, we are doing a number of things now to really try 

and ensure that we have full SCRA compliance. 

One of the issues that I know you all are aware of is that we 

have had some improper foreclosures. We now check the DoD Web 

site at least three times, and often a number of other times, before 

there is either a foreclosure referral or before subsequent action is 

taken with respect to a foreclosure. 

So from our standpoint this is very much about having a system 

in which there are multiple check points and different employees 

reviewing specific accounts and particular moments in the life of an 

account to make sure that we get it right. 

The CHAIRMAN. One quick question and then I will turn it over 

to the Ranking Member for questions. 

I come from a home building background, a real estate background—how many people contact you as a lending institution and 

say ‘‘you are charging me the wrong interest’’ yet continue to pay 

you at the rate they believe that they legally are required to pay? 

And if you have people doing that why in the world wouldn’t you 

figure out a way to work with them to solve their problem instead 

of going to foreclosure? 

Ms. MUDICK. Mr. Chairman, I think actually the way this was 

handled was that when an individual called, an employee who was 

trying to provide customer service dealt with that individual’s situation and said either, ‘‘I will try and get back to you,’’ or ‘‘let me 

see if I can understand it better’’ or the employee might not have 

even dealt with it that way. You know, if we are to listen to the 

Rowleses, they had a number of conversations in which they didn’t 

even get the benefit of that kind of service, and frankly, not only 

do we deeply regret that, but we are very embarrassed by that, and 

that is clearly an opportunity for us. 

So for us I think it is making sure that a call that raises that 

kind of question for a servicemember really gets channeled to the 

right place. And there is no question that somebody who is dealing 

with that kind of an issue needs to have specific training so that 

they know where to look and how to look and who to go to within 

our organization to see whether the interest is being charged correctly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Filner. 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

How many executive vice presidents are there at Chase? Or let 

me put it another way. How high are you in the hierarchy there? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

Ms. MUDICK. I am a member of Chase’s Executive Committee, 

which is fewer than 100 employees at JPMorgan Chase. 

Mr. FILNER. And what do the 100 people do? I mean, is that the 

highest policy office in Chase? 

Ms. MUDICK. There is an Operating Committee, which is a group 

of approximately 20 people. 

Mr. FILNER. So how many executive vice presidents are there? 

Ms. MUDICK. I don’t have the answer to that question, sir, I am 

sorry. 

Mr. FILNER. But you will find out for me, right? 

Ms. MUDICK. I will indeed. 

[Ms. Mudick subsequently provided the following:] 

JPMorgan Chase has 20 Executive Vice Presidents at the corporate level. 

Stephanie Mudick is one of these Executive Vice Presidents, and is a member of JPMorgan Chase’s Executive Committee, which comprises 55 senior 

officers who lead our businesses and functions. 

Mr. FILNER. Could you fix things if we needed to? You are here 

on behalf of Chase, so I assume that means you can fix things. Can 

you fix things? I mean you said you weren’t aware of that hotline 

number. Can you call somebody and find out what is going on 

there? 

Ms. MUDICK. Together with my colleagues there is—— 

Mr. FILNER. Okay, so you can’t fix things. 

Ms. MUDICK. I would say that we try and fix whatever we can. 

Mr. FILNER. Okay. The Rowleses testified that they didn’t have 

any statements for a year, you haven’t cashed their last mortgage 

check. Can you fix that today? You said you were going to make 

them whole. I mean they have brought up several questions. Can 

you fix those problems? 

Ms. MUDICK. We are trying to fix—— 

Mr. FILNER. I don’t want a we. You, can you fix that? 

Ms. MUDICK. I can, together with my colleagues, cause changes 

to be made in our organization. 

And with respect to the Rowleses, you know, we are trying to figure out how we can come to an agreement. We have agreed to mediate. 

Mr. FILNER. Come to an agreement because of a lawsuit? But you 

said you were going to make them whole. As I read your statement 

your average payment to make people whole is $70. Does that 

make people whole who have gone through this stuff? 

Ms. MUDICK. The median payment is $70, and let me explain to 

you how we get to that number. 

Mr. FILNER. Because you are just dealing with the amount of interest that you overpaid, plus some fees. That is all you are dealing 

with. You have not dealt with any human costs or any emotional 

costs—pain and suffering. You are just dealing with the amount of 

interest and fees that you overcharged, right? I mean that is what 

it says here anyway. 

Ms. MUDICK. Congressman, most of the servicemembers who 

were impacted by this are not even aware that they overpaid, and 

in part that is because the amount they overpaid was not material 

to them. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

Mr. FILNER. I can’t believe that there is nobody else going 

through what the Rowleses are going through. 

But you know, you can’t make the changes so you are not making them whole. You know, you broke the law. Your bank broke the 

law. Shouldn’t someone go to jail for that? And who should? Who 

is responsible? Are you, as the executive VP who was given us from 

the bank to answer for this stuff, should you go to jail? 

Ms. MUDICK. We are doing a review internally in order to figure 

out—— 

Mr. FILNER. Who is responsible? 

Ms. MUDICK [continuing]. Who is responsible for what happened. 

Mr. FILNER. Are you going to tell us who, are you going to give 

us a person or people that are responsible? 

Ms. MUDICK. Well, we will certainly hold those folks who are responsible for this account—— 

Mr. FILNER. I know, but you broke the law. How are we going 

to hold someone accountable? Are we going to know who did what 

when? 

Ms. MUDICK. As a result of our review, we will be happy to share 

more information with the Committee. 

[Ms. Mudick subsequently provided the following information:] 

Chase deeply regrets the mistakes we made in applying the protections 

of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The errors here were not made intentionally, but our processes were not what they needed to be. We are devoting all possible resources to correcting past mistakes and to improving 

our processes and controls to ensure that we are in full compliance with the 

SCRA. Of course, if we learn that any Chase employees intentionally engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the application of SCRA protections, Chase will discipline them accordingly. 

Mr. FILNER. I am sure you will. I think you are probably going 

to have to discover all the problems before you are going to give 

them to us. 

It just seems to me that you all—you are not alone in this. You 

all have no responsibility, everything you said was impersonal, nobody is responsible. You know, you said the SCRA coding fell off 

the statement. Nobody took it off, nobody was responsible, it fell 

off? Oh, wow. 

So you look at your testimony, everything is impersonal, nobody 

is ever responsible, and yet these people’s lives have been turned 

upside down. Somebody, or some group of people, should be held 

responsible. Maybe then, as the attorney said, maybe you will take 

this seriously. Maybe if somebody went to jail with a white collar. 

There is no more Mr. Morgan and Mr. Chase, I take it, but somebody should take responsibility for what is going on. 

You just cannot hide, as the Supreme Court tells us now, you are 

an individual, you are not just a corporation. Somebody has to 

come forward and take responsibility for this. You just cannot 

apologize and give people $70 and think this is over. This is not 

over for them. You heard what they are still going though and now 

you can’t fix it anyway. 

So when are they going get their mortgage statement? Just take 

one thing at a time. You should be able to call somebody right now 

and say get them their mortgage statements, but apparently you 

can’t. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

I appreciate your apology, but you have broken the law, you have 

ruined people’s lives, and people ought to take responsibility for 

that. 

The CHAIRMAN. What actions has Chase taken to make the affected homeowners whole? And are the homeowners satisfied generally with the actions that JPMorgan Chase has taken? 

Ms. MUDICK. Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of sending out 

checks, and in certain cases—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You are currently sending out checks. Have affected homeowners been notified the checks are forthcoming? I 

guess if they don’t know they are coming they don’t know if they 

are satisfied yet, correct? 

Ms. MUDICK. That is correct. We have credited a number of accounts for our home equity borrowers and we have done that and 

I don’t believe that we have heard any complaints, certainly not 

that I am aware of, for the folks whose accounts we credited. 

And obviously in the context of the foreclosures, I mentioned that 

currently the number that we have identified is 18 improper foreclosures. For ten of those, we were able to actually unwind the sale 

and give the home back to the borrower. Two of those—— 

The CHAIRMAN. When you say unwind the sale, had they gone all 

the way through the foreclosure proceedings to the courthouse sale 

or was it prior to that? I mean at what point were they in the foreclosure process? 

Ms. MUDICK. Well, for those whom we foreclosed upon the foreclosure process had been completed. Whether there was a courtroom involved depended on the geography of course, but since we 

still owned those homes we were able to return those homes to the 

borrowers. In two of those situations, we settled. And there are still 

six cases outstanding where we are trying to figure out how to 

work with the borrowers to come to the right resolution. 

Obviously because there is a lawsuit, you know, we can’t necessarily directly engage with them, but we want to make sure that 

we are able to make them whole. 

The CHAIRMAN. You talked about the number that you had totally gone through, but how many people were in the process then, 

of foreclosure? Is it above the number that you have already talked 

about? 

Ms. MUDICK. The SCRA does provide certain limitations on what 

a lender can do, and that limitation really extends to foreclosure 

sales. So when a borrower becomes delinquent we may take certain 

actions, but we cannot go to judgment or sale. 

So I can’t answer your question as to how many borrowers are 

currently in a delinquency process. 

The CHAIRMAN. So as long as you don’t foreclose you can harass 

them? 

Ms. MUDICK. The law prevents us from foreclosing, the law does 

not prevent us from engaging in what we would call loss mitigation, which is trying to reach out to a borrower who is not paying 

and engage in conversation with them. We do our best to make 

sure that if we are making calls or receiving calls, there is no 

harassing language in those calls. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many SCRA eligible individuals are there 

involved in your loss mitigation process right now? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

Ms. MUDICK. I can only tell you that I know we currently have 

SCRA protected borrowers. I don’t know the answer; I am happy 

to get back to you with that information. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would for the record. 

[Ms. Mudick subsequently provided the following information:] 

There are currently 643 SCRA-protected home lending borrowers who are 

at some stage of the loss mitigation process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Huelskamp. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to ask a few questions. 

Per the SCRA, on your application forms does Chase actually 

have a box to check to indicate the applicant is a military member? 

Ms. MUDICK. I don’t know the answer to that question. I will 

have to get back to you on that. 

[Ms. Mudick subsequently provided the following information:] 

Chase does not ask borrowers about their military status on our standard 

mortgage application form. The protections of the SCRA apply only to debt 

obligations that originated before a servicemember’s active duty military 

service and for which the servicemember is still obligated. Chase’s policy is 

not to foreclose on any active duty servicemember, regardless of when his 

or her loan was originated. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Do you think it would be a good idea to 

have that on the application if you do not currently? 

Ms. MUDICK. Yes, I do. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And as far as unwinding foreclosure, I find that 

rather interesting, as far as how that might be done, but more importantly, repairing the credit rating. What is Chase doing for 

those situations where you have admitted or will admit failure to 

follow the law? Obviously making them whole financially doesn’t 

necessarily change their credit rating. Can you describe what you 

all do or have done in order to repair them in terms of the credit 

bureaus? 

Ms. MUDICK. Yes, sir. Congressman, the SCRA does not prevent 

any kind of credit reporting other than credit reporting solely because somebody is asking for SCRA benefits. 

As a practice, we have not engaged in negative credit reporting 

in connection with our SCRA borrowers. What that means is that 

in cases in which we may have made a mistake or not treated 

somebody as an SCRA protected borrower—we may have taken actions and done some credit reporting—we will reverse all of those 

to the extent that the borrower is SCRA protected. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. So on those that you refunded about $2 million, 

the 4,500 families that you indicate in some testimony here, they 

will be made whole on their credit reports? 

Ms. MUDICK. The lion’s share of those borrowers will not have 

had any credit reporting on them at all. And to the extent that others have, we will definitely take action with respect to that and reverse the reporting. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And how do you reverse the reporting? Can you 

strip that off there, do you admit an error on the report? How exactly would you go about that? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

Ms. MUDICK. I believe we can ask the credit bureaus to remove 

the reference. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And are they required to do so? 

Ms. MUDICK. I believe that is the terms of our agreement with 

them, yes. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. And you would do that with all the credit 

bureaus in reference to these individuals? 

Ms. MUDICK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for coming as well. 

You had mentioned earlier that there are errors and you regretfully are sorry for the errors and you are going to pay back what 

you owe these individuals. What is the interest rate you are paying—giving the money back? 

Ms. MUDICK. The interest rate, sir, is seven and a quarter percent. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Seven and a quarter percent. 

Ms. MUDICK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICHAUD. You heard the Rowleses went through a lot, and 

you mentioned errors, and originally when I heard about—so yeah, 

it is possible for people to make errors, but what the Rowleses went 

through, 5 years, harassing phone calls at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, it is just—is beyond errors. 

And you heard some of my colleagues talk about arrogance, greed 

within JPMorgan, and actually Mr. Stearns mentioned the fact 

that JPMorgan received, I know they paid it back, $25 billion on 

the TARP funding. Mr. Diamond, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 

for JPMorgan received an additional bonus in 2007 of $28 million, 

last year almost $16 million, and you are paying these individuals 

seven and a half percent interest. 

I think there is a disconnect when you look at the bonuses received by the CEOs and what you have done to individuals who 

serve this country very well. 

I am sure that the chief executive officer for JPMorgan has a 

very nice home, he probably can cater Christmas parties, Thanksgiving parties at his very elegant home, and he can probably sleep 

very well at night, and the reason why he and others can sleep 

very well at night is because there are men and women in this 

country that are protecting this country so individuals such as Mr. 

Diamond can sleep well at night very easily. 

However, my big concern is the fact that when you look at the 

suicide rate among our active military men and women, it has increased substantially, and part of the reason is financial reasons 

where these men and women cannot support their family. And 

what JPMorgan and I am sure other companies have done is added 

that burden to these men and women. In some cases, I am not saying in any cases the suicide is directly caused by JPMorgan, but 

it is because of financial problems that they are facing. 

And when I hear the Rowleses’ story of 5 years having to go 

through this and the harassment, it is just beyond me that it has 

taken this long. And the fact that it is seven and a half percent 

is disgraceful. It is un-American, unpatriotic. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

We heard the attorney in the first panel talk about increasing 

penalties for companies such as JPMorgan. My question is, first of 

all would you support increase in penalties, number one, changing 

the law? And if you don’t support changing the law do you think 

that we should or attorneys around the country, because of the 

Citizens United cases where corporations have many rights that individuals are now accorded, should corporations be held liable 

under wrongful death if it could demonstrate that financial stress 

was because of banks putting that stress on individuals because 

they are not following the law? 

Ms. MUDICK. Congressman, we take full responsibility for our 

failures here both with respect to the Rowles family and for the 

other servicemembers who are impacted by this, and we are deeply 

disappointed in ourselves. 

I personally have a very high level of confidence that the errors 

that we made were not a function of any intention to mischarge 

any of these servicemembers. And to say that we regret it is really 

an understatement, but I am certain that this was not done with 

any intent. 

With respect to whether the law should be changed, that is certainly within the Congressional purview, and you all need to do 

what you think makes the most sense and will work. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Well, I can say as one individual and I know my 

time is running out, the regret that you say that you deeply feel 

does not show in your actions with seven and a half percent for 

these individuals, especially when you look at a $28 million bonus 

for the chief executive officer of JPMorgan and almost $16 million 

last year. 

Words are cheap, action is what is important. And I would encourage you to look at your actions versus saying a seven and a 

half percent so that Mr. Diamond can go home tonight and sleep 

comfortably, because men and women put their lives on the line for 

us each and every day, and they do not need this added stress because of errors, especially when those errors have been brought to 

light over and over again by the Rowleses, and I am sure others 

as well. 

So with that I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stutzman. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions and appreciate your testimony and 

being here today. 

Obviously this is one that is a situation that nobody ever wants 

to see happen and I am sure you don’t and I know I can’t imagine 

what the families have had to deal with, and especially circumstances that we are facing with the economy and also with the 

difficulties in financing today and the marketplace and housing. 

Do you feel that Chase has gone above and beyond in correcting 

these errors with the families? 

Ms. MUDICK. What we are doing is really focusing on making 

sure that we have the right processes now to ensure that there 

aren’t any other families who could be impacted, so that has really 

been what we have been thinking about and we are trying to ensure that we do it correctly and fully and completely. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

We think with respect to a remediation to the families we are 

doing what is right and what is appropriate, and obviously in the 

context of the litigation, you know, which we have agreed we will 

go to mediation and we hope we are going to be able to figure out 

what, you know, an agreement between the parties so that we can 

move forward, we can make sure that the servicemembers and 

their families can move forward. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Do you have or does Chase have an idea of what 

that might look like? 

Ms. MUDICK. No, I can’t really speak to current discussions 

around settlement or mediation. Obviously we have come up with 

an approach to remediation that we think covers the losses or the 

mischarges that the servicemembers have experienced. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Do you know if there are other entities that may 

also—the same situation may arise out of other organizations, 

other entities that do make the same sort of loans that may pop 

their heads up that we find other problems like this in other entities? Do you have a trade organization that you work together 

with? Have you been having any discussions with other entities so 

far? 

Ms. MUDICK. We obviously have been trying to really pay most 

of our attention to making sure we get this right going forward and 

to making sure that we take care of the servicemembers who we 

overcharged. 

That being said, we have found that the problems that we have 

experienced come from both the Heritage Chase organization and 

the Heritage organizations we have acquired in the last couple of 

years, Washington Mutual and EMC, which was part of Bear 

Stearns. Given the fact that there have been problems in each of 

those organizations, it suggests that there may be issues out there 

amongst other lenders. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I am sure others are probably watching this situation and watching how you all are responding and handling this 

situation. Is there anything that Chase feels that they cannot only 

exhibit but share with other organizations for making sure this 

doesn’t happen anywhere else? 

Ms. MUDICK. I think that each organization has to do its own internal review to figure out whether they have any issues and what 

kinds of issues those are. 

With respect to making this better and easier for servicemembers, we would be happy to both work with the Committee and 

with the Department of Defense to figure out how to make the 

process a smoother one. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I mean is it possible that this happens outside 

of just loans to servicemen and servicewomen? In the other loans 

that you make, is there a possiblility of this happening anywhere 

else? 

Ms. MUDICK. I think that the issues that we are talking about 

today are really specifically focused on ensuring that we are satisfying the rules of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

To the extent that the issues that have been raised suggests that 

there are customer service questions or customer experience elements, we are very much looking closely at those and trying to 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

make sure that we have a very positive experience for all of our 

customers, including our servicemember customers. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, 

Ms. Mudick. 

I have to tell you I am a high school teacher by profession so I 

am optimistic and forgiving, but I am also up for a dog ate my 

homework line and I am very disappointed especially when you 

talked about—you said we take full responsibility, but the problem 

was orders. 

I want to show you, this is my Chase credit card agreement. I 

don’t have time to scroll through it all, if you take a look at that. 

You seem to know that. That is a military deployment order. Let 

me be very clear it says, you are deployed on temporary change of 

station assigned to the 10th Military Police, number of days in determinant with proceed on the 15th of February, security clearance 

secret, and that is it. 

How difficult is that? I, as a 17-year-old E–1, got orders, knew 

I had to be in Omaha to get on the plane and end up in Fort 

Benning. You can provide me a 63-page document to calculate interest to the exact penny, but you come in front of this Committee—I am not an attorney, but I have to give you some good advice, don’t go to court and give that answer, that that is the reason 

that these people got in trouble because you couldn’t calculate the 

orders, you didn’t know when they went on the service. 

I came here looking for answers, I appreciate you sitting in front 

of us, but I am highly, highly disappointed that that is the reason 

you didn’t get it right? 

I suspect everything after that now to be how much you are 

going to do. The question that Mr. Stutzman asked is very good, 

what about your affiliates? How can we guarantee the affiliates 

that fall under JPMorgan and all those other names that I can’t 

track down are going to follow through with this? 

You told us, well, you didn’t need Mr. Harpootlian and you didn’t 

need these folks, Mr. Harvey, you were going to do it on your own. 

So we should just tell them to go away and wait and you are going 

to fix that? 

Are you going to stick to this that you couldn’t read this? That 

is a standard military order that everybody sitting behind you has 

been in the military knows. Any 17-year-old kid can read that. You 

deal in complex documents. My mortgage is 230 pages long. So now 

you come in front of us and tell us that. 

I am just sorry, I am not buying the full responsibility line. And 

I certainly give you the chance to respond. 

Ms. MUDICK. I think that we have identified a number of problems with respect to how we handled this, and we acknowledge 

that we failed here, and we acknowledge that there were a number 

of different ways in which we made mistakes. 

So we are trying to figure out how to fix them. We are trying to 

figure out how to have effective safeguards going forward. We are 

trying to make sure we have the right checks and balances. We are 

trying to make sure we have the right employees associated with 

making sure that we have this right. We are trying to make sure 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

that there is the right management focus. There are no resources 

that we are not prepared to assign to this. 

Mr. WALZ. Where was the original call center? That wasn’t your 

one in the Philippines was it? Would they have handled that originally the one in Makati City outside Manila? 

Ms. MUDICK. We have service centers across the United States 

and a few outside the United States. 

Mr. WALZ. Is there a chance that this servicemember’s call could 

have gone outside the United States to a non-citizen? 

Ms. MUDICK. There is a chance, yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. Then that is a problem, right, in your mind? 

Ms. MUDICK. In my mind, sir, all servicemembers would be better off making sure that they were speaking to somebody who had 

a deep knowledge of SCRA and what their rights are and that is 

the way we are handling these—— 

Mr. WALZ. Do you have a veterans hiring preference in Chase? 

Ms. MUDICK. I believe the answer to that is, yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. So human resources would if I am a veteran they 

have a preference on hiring veterans? 

Ms. MUDICK. I will have to double check on that, but I believe 

the answer the yes, sir. 

[Ms. Mudick subsequently provided the following information:] 

JPMorgan Chase is taking significant measurable steps to offer jobs to 

veterans. Chase has partnered with 10 other large companies to commit to 

collectively hire 100,000 military members leaving active duty service and 

other veterans by the end of 2020. The program, called the ‘‘100,000 Jobs 

Mission,’’ expects to add more partners and increase the target number 

of jobs as it grows. The partnership for the 100,000 Jobs Mission has 

committed to hiring 20,000 veterans by the end of 2012. To apply for a 

position at JPMorgan Chase or to post a resume, veterans can go to 

www.chasemilitary.com. 

In addition, Chase will require all of our vendors to disclose their military 

hiring practices and will make contract decisions in part based on the 

strength of those programs. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. And the last thing I would leave you with, and 

I just can’t stress it enough, I watched my friend from Maine and 

they are not known for being very emotional but I know how this 

touches Mr. Michaud. 

I think about this as a deployed soldier, my wife has a 2-year old, 

a crisis is the car won’t start to get to work, and those things upset 

my day in a non-combat area to the point where you are trying to 

deal with them. I cannot imagine, and I have seen it on soldiers, 

of what they go through. The level of stress and what Mr. Michaud 

was starting to hit on on the suicide rates, I don’t think we should 

underestimate that and we are certainly not drawing that there is 

a cause and effect to this, but anything that is adding stress to a 

servicemember, especially in a combat zone, is incredibly risky type 

of behavior, and so no stone should go unturned, no lack of trying 

to fix this. 

And I cannot stress enough going back to this, that is the weakest answer I have ever heard given in front of this Committee that 

we couldn’t read the military orders coming from one of the largest 

financial institutions in the world. There are thousands of lawyers 

that work for you, give it to them or go get a 17-year-old recruit 

and they will interpret it for you. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his question, and I 

think it is important that we still continue to frame this. JPMorgan 

Chase keeps representing that they made mistakes. The fact is the 

law was broken. 

Ms. MUDICK. We failed to comply with all aspects of the law, yes, 

sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, I know we have all been hard on you for breaking the law 

and I appreciate your expressions of contrition and I appreciate 

them more because there are other banks who have done the same 

thing who have not been at all contrite and have continued to brazen it out and fight every lawsuit in every jurisdiction over—using 

every procedural defense that is available to them. But this is not 

an obscure provision of the law that you really, you know, there are 

a lot of laws out there, I guess we can’t know all of them until— 

and how they might apply to our conduct, but the 6-percent cap of 

mortgage payments may be relatively new, but the stay on legal 

proceedings has been in law off and on at least since the Civil War 

and continuously since the first World War, and the thinking behind it is that if you are in the service of our country, if you are 

serving our Nation’s military you should be able to give your entire 

energy, your entire attention to the defense of our country and not 

have to worry about what may be going on in a courthouse back 

home, how your lives may be affected when you are not there to 

defend yourself. That if you have a claim against someone who is 

serving the country in the military it can wait until they can come 

home and defend themselves, and that is not an obscure law. 

Now one of the Members asked the last panel if someone else 

had made the mortgage and Chase had bought it, and the Rowleses 

said yes, that they had got it from an independent company and 

sold it to Chase. Now am I correct in assuming that it is now in 

a securitized pool and that there are now investors who really own 

it, it has now disappeared into the mortgage backed securities so 

that you don’t really own it, you service it; is that correct? 

Ms. MUDICK. We do not own the loan, that is correct. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. It is owned by a securitized 

pool and you service that; is that right? 

Ms. MUDICK. I don’t know whether it is owned by a securitized 

pool or whether it is just owned by another institution, but I know 

that we—— 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. But you are servicing it. 

Ms. MUDICK. But we do service it, yes. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. And I understand also 

that the four biggest banks, you all, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, 

Citibank, secured service two-thirds of mortgages in the country; is 

that correct? 

Ms. MUDICK. I believe that is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay, so this is not a small 

business for you. 

Ms. MUDICK. It is not. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. And I understand also that 

your servicing unit is a separate corporation, it is an affiliated corporation; is that correct? It is certainly a separate unit. 

Ms. MUDICK. I believe it is a separate unit, yes. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. So it is all they do. I mean that 

is all they do is service mortgages, collect payments, calculate how 

much people owe, give payout to people who are selling their house 

or whatever, foreclose, modify, that is all they do, right? 

Ms. MUDICK. Well, they are part of our home lending business, 

but yes, it is a unit of our home lending. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. So there are not that 

many laws they have to keep up with; isn’t that right? This is a 

big deal. 

Ms. MUDICK. Well, there are a lot of laws that they have to make 

sure that they respect and adhere to, but you are absolutely correct, this is a very big deal. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. This is not something 

that should have escaped your notice. 

Who is training your people and who is training the people who 

are training them if they miss this? 

Ms. MUDICK. We have fairly extensive training programs, which 

we have enhanced recently and will continue to look at and enhance to make sure that they are clear and simple and specific. 

And we have compliance review those programs. We have internal 

auditors review those programs. And now in the context of us looking at all this, we are having outside counsel look at these programs also. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. Mr. Harpootlian made 

several suggestions on how the law might change. Well, first of all, 

I am not clear of the status of his litigation against the Rowleses’ 

class representatives action against Chase. Are you—that is still in 

litigation, right? There are some issues still in litigation? 

Ms. MUDICK. It is still in litigation. We have just agreed to go 

to mediation. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. But you have contested 

whether there is any private right of action before the law changed; 

isn’t that right? That is still a position that you are taking, right? 

That the Rowleses and others who may have had their houses foreclosed upon before the law changed a year ago, they can’t do anything about it. 

Ms. MUDICK. Congressman, I have not reviewed our papers, so 

I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. Mr. Harpootlian suggested that the banks might take this law more seriously and be 

more careful about complying if there were attorneys’ fees. Do you 

think attorneys’ fees would help? For attorneys’ fees for plaintiffs. 

Ms. MUDICK. I think that we, as a bank subject to these rules 

take them very seriously, and I think our problem was—— 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. Your conduct suggests 

otherwise, but I understand you are saying now that you are taking it seriously. 

Ms. MUDICK. Well, I think we did a bad job at satisfying the 

rules, but we understood our obligations and tried to do the right 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

thing and to make sure that we were in full compliance. We did 

a terrible job. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. If someone has had their 

rights under the SCRA violated, first of all, why should they not 

be compensated for that, and why should there not be a provision 

to pay their attorneys by the defendant if the defendant violates 

the law, at least with respect to what are obviously knowing violations? 

Ms. MUDICK. We want to make sure that we compensate the people whose rights we didn’t enforce to the fullest extent. It is not for 

me to say whether and how you should amend the law to provide 

for attorneys’ fees. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. To follow up that question, Mr. Harpootlian said 

that basically they were doing it on a contingency basis. Your answer to me would assume that if Mr. Harpootlian were billing the 

Rowleses that would be something that JPMorgan Chase should 

pay, but if they are not billing them then that would not be your 

responsibility; is that a correct assumption? 

Ms. MUDICK. Sir, I don’t recall saying or suggesting that. You 

know, I am not a litigator so I can’t tell you when we have to pay 

attorneys’ fees and when you don’t have to. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I understand, but the answer to Mr. Miller’s 

question just his last question—— 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Well, that is not—I mean, Mr. 

Chairman, I appreciate your question, but that actually is not the 

way attorneys’ fees provisions work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I understand. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. But her answer led me to believe 

that she was concerned about making sure that the Rowleses were 

made whole and we certainly expect that to be the case, but you 

know, the attorneys’ fees I think are part of the discussion and in 

making sure that, you know, if the claim is that the Rowleses 

aren’t damaged because they haven’t paid attorneys’ fees, if that is 

their position, I think that they are making a mistake. Any other 

questions? 

Mr. FILNER. Just one last question, if I may. Ms. Mudick, a corporation is set up to avoid personal liability and accountability. I 

think the Supreme Court may have unintentionally shattered that 

with its Citizens United ruling and said that you are an individual, 

so it seems to me you have responsibilities and your people have 

responsibilities and accountability. 

Mr. Walz said, to put Mr. Michaud’s point in context, that he 

wasn’t suggesting cause and effect. I would go further, and I think 

there is a cause and effect. People who are under pressure we know 

commit suicide, and I would call it homicide frankly because you 

are putting them under pressure and you are responsible for that. 

You have errors and you have caused tremendous, tremendous 

harm. 

You are never going to make them whole with $70 I will tell you 

that. You need to take responsibility, and your whole corporation 

needs to understand when you are dealing with these issues, and 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

I don’t care if they are servicemembers or not, although that is 

more clear in the law, that you are putting millions of people under 

incredible pressure. They have committed suicide. Veterans and 

non-veterans and you are responsible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and if there are no further questions, thank you, Ms. Mudick, for being here today. 

Ms. MUDICK. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that I would call our third panel to the 

table, and we would like to welcome back Colonel Shawn Shumake, 

Director of the Office of Legal Policy for the Secretary of Defense, 

and I extend a warm welcome to Ms. Holly Petraeus in her first 

appearance before this Committee. Ms. Petraeus is the Team Leader for the Office of Servicemember Affairs of Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Implementation Team at the Department of the Treasury. 

Ms. Petraeus, I have had the honor of working with your husband and his dedication to this Nation and our troops is beyond reproach. I am confident that you will serve America’s military families with equal distinction in your new capacity, and without objection both of your written statements will be entered into the record, 

and you are each recognized to 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF HOLLISTER K. PETRAEUS, TEAM LEAD, OFFICE OF SERVICEMEMBER AFFAIRS, CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION BUREAU IMPLEMENTATION TEAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; AND COLONEL SHAWN 

SHUMAKE (USA), DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

STATEMENT OF HOLLISTER K. PETRAEUS 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

distinguished Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Implementation Team’s work to establish the Office of Servicemember 

Affairs. 

First of all, I would like to thank this Committee for its continuing efforts to protect servicemembers, veterans, and their families from predatory financial practices. 

I have been a member of the military community my entire life 

and I feel that it is very important that our military has strong advocates working on its behalf. And it is my intent that the Office 

of Servicemember Affairs be one of those strong advocates, educating and looking out for military personnel and their families. 

I come from a military family, one that has a tradition of service 

going back to the Revolutionary War. My father served in the 

Army for over 36 years, fighting in both World War II and Vietnam. Two of my brothers also served in Vietnam, and of course, my 

husband is currently serving, and I am a military mom, as well. 

The military is in many ways a separate community in our Nation, 

and it is one that I have the privilege to know very well. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

The last time I testified before Congress was over 6 years ago, 

when I spoke about deployment-related issues at a joint hearing of 

two Senate Subcommittees. At that time my husband had just 

begun the second of three deployments to Iraq and I was a longtime volunteer in the military community. 

As a volunteer, I had the opportunity to serve as a senior Family 

Readiness Group advisor during deployment and to work with 

local, State, and national legislators on issues affecting Army families. 

Five months after that testimony, I became the Director of BBB 

Military Line, a program of the Council of Better Business Bureaus 

providing consumer education and advocacy for servicemembers 

and their families, a position that I held for 6 years. 

In that role, I oversaw a national program that worked with the 

Department of Defense as a partner in the DoD Financial Readiness Campaign, and fostered outreach from the 120 local Better 

Business Bureaus to military communities across the United 

States. 

While with the BBB, I made on-site visits to many military installations—learning about the consumer issues that impacted 

them, giving presentations on consumer scams, and working to establish local BBB-military relationships. I guided development of 

teen and adult financial curricula, taught to over 10,000 individuals in military communities around the United States and wrote 

a monthly consumer newsletter addressing issues of interest to the 

military. 

Professor Warren asked me to join the Implementation Team at 

the end of last year, I started a little less than a month ago, and 

we are hard at work building the Office of Servicemember Affairs. 

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed into law on July 21, 

2010, established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 

charged it with ensuring that consumers have the information they 

need to make financial decisions that are best for them and their 

families. 

The CFPB will work to promote fairness, transparency, and competition in the markets for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services. The CFPB will set and enforce clear, consistent rules that allow banks and other consumer 

financial service providers to compete on a level playing field and 

that allow consumers to see clearly the costs and features of financial products and services. 

On July 21st of this year, many consumer financial protection 

functions that are currently with other agencies will transfer to the 

CFPB. I have to point out, however, that responsibilities relating 

to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the focus of this hearing, 

will remain with the prudential regulators and the Justice Department. 

Eventually the CFPB will grow into a fully operational financial 

regulator and supervisor, and it will be the primary place where 

members of the public, including servicemembers, can come with 

questions and complaints about consumer financial products and 

services. 

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the Office of Servicemember Affairs to work in partnership with the Pentagon to see that military 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

personnel and their families receive strong financial education, to 

monitor their complaints about consumer financial products and 

services and responses to those complaints, and to coordinate efforts by Federal and State agencies to improve consumer financial 

protection measures for military families. 

We are authorized to enter into agreements with the Department 

of Defense to carry out OSA’s work and to make sure that we 

achieve those goals. 

Within the CFPB our job is to make sure that every division understands the unique military community and the financial issues 

that impact it. I plan to work with our examiners to ensure they 

are current on military-specific issues, to encourage our enforcement team to take action against financial providers who break the 

law to harm servicemembers, and to work with the consumer response unit to be sure that it is attuned to the military community 

and responsive to its concerns. We also plan to work closely with 

the CFPB’s financial education team. 

Right now we are focused on planning and scheduling visits to 

military bases and other meetings that will help us identify problems and determine where we can make the biggest difference. I 

have already met with senior DoD officials, and it is clear to me 

that the people at the Pentagon are very supportive of our mission. 

In addition, I have met with senior staff from the Department of 

Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The Justice Department is eager to 

work with the CFPB to protect the rights of servicemembers. 

I was pleased to hear about the scope of DOJ’s enforcement activities on behalf of servicemembers, which include authorized lawsuits against three nationwide lenders and several other active investigations involving both foreclosure issues and failure to lower 

the interest rate to 6 percent. 

We are planning to coordinate closely with DOJ in light of its enforcement responsibilities under the SCRA. 

This past Tuesday I sent a letter to the chief executive officers 

of the 25 largest banks that provide mortgage servicing. This was 

prompted by the recent news reports alleging that major financial 

institutions had violated the SCRA, which provides financial protections for our military. I urged the chief executive officers to take 

steps to ensure that their institutions are in compliance with the 

law. 

We have already started a conversation with the military community. Professor Warren and I have been to Joint Base San Antonio where we had two roundtable discussions. The first was with 

military service providers, as well as the base’s leadership. We 

asked questions about what scams and other financial problems 

these providers were seeing, and how they thought those financial 

problems might be dealt with. 

The second roundtable was with military personnel and spouses 

from the Air Force, Army, and Navy. They felt strongly about the 

need for mandatory financial training, not just in basic training, 

but on a continuing basis. 

The military spouses in the room also brought up the difficulties 

and temporary loss of income when moving a spouse’s civilian career job, as well as the basic financial strains of frequent moves. 

I could certainly relate to that as I have moved 23 times in 36 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

years of marriage. We plan to do more roundtables in the coming 

months. 

Protecting our servicemembers from suffering devastating financial repercussions for answering the call to service is not only the 

right thing to do—it is also important to our National security. 

Military personnel who are distracted by financial problems cannot 

do their jobs to the best of their abilities. In fact, hundreds of people in the military have their essential security clearances revoked 

each year due to financial problems, which then means they can’t 

do the job they were trained for. 

A recent Department of Defense survey found that servicemembers consider their finances to be the second largest source of 

stress in their lives, ahead of deployments, health, family, and war. 

I was dismayed to learn about the recent allegations of mortgagerelated violations of the SCRA. I hope that the recent attention to 

this issue will cause all lenders to take steps to educate their employees about the financial protections that the SCRA provides and 

to take appropriate proactive steps to ensure compliance. This law 

was put in place to enable our soldiers to focus on their jobs, and 

it is important that it be adhered to. Servicemembers should not 

have to struggle to get the protections that are due to them under 

law. 

A National Guard wife once told me that her husband had been 

activated three times, and each time she had to fight with their 

bank for months to get the SCRA applied. 

As you know a foreclosure is devastating for any American family to experience, but it can be especially painful for military families. Both the family back home and the servicemember abroad, 

who feels helpless to take action to prevent the foreclosure, are put 

in a terrible situation. That is why it is so important that servicemembers receive all the protections afforded to them under the 

SCRA. 

Last month, I attended the White House announcement of the 

Strengthening Our Military Families initiative. The President, 

First Lady, and Dr. Biden all spoke at that event, affirming their 

commitment to military families, and almost the entire cabinet was 

in attendance as well. There is currently a very positive feeling in 

this country toward the service and sacrifice of military families, 

and a desire to support them. One way is to help to enforce the 

laws that are already on the books to protect them and to hold to 

account those who ignore them. Another is to write new rules when 

needed. It is also important to educate the military about their financial protections and about best financial practices. That will all 

be a big part of the mission of the CFPB and the Office of Servicemember Affairs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Petraeus appears on p. 75.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL SHAWN SHUMAKE 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Chairman Miller and distinguished Members 

of the Committee, thank you for allowing the Department of Defense to comment on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and to 

explain how we educate our servicemembers about it. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

The Department recognizes the fundamental importance of the 

SCRA, which has as its lofty goal providing servicemembers peace 

of mind, knowing that while they put their lives on the line that 

their personal affairs and economic interests will be protected. 

The SCRA’s protections are broad and diverse. The Act protects 

servicemembers from evictions, default judgments, and foreclosure. 

It allows them to delay judicial proceedings and in some cases to 

cap their interest rates. It provides some tax relief. 

Congress continues to play a pivotal role in protecting our 

servicemembers. To ensure that the SCRA could be aggressively 

enforced by those for whom it is designed to protect, Congress 

passed the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010, which clarified that 

servicemembers could seek civil enforcement of the SCRA through 

the courts and be awarded damages and attorneys’ fees. 

Although many courts had found that such a private right of action has been implied, others have rejected that interpretation, 

leading to the unconscionable conclusion that servicemembers had 

benefits and protections that could not be enforced. This is now resolved. 

For the last several years, Congress has relieved may of the burdens of military service through a number of substantive changes 

to the SCRA. In 2008, Congress extended the 6-percent interest 

rate cap for pre-service mortgage obligations beyond the last day 

of active duty for a full year thereafter. At the same time, Congress 

also amended the SCRA to extend protections from foreclosure on 

pre-service mortgages from 90 days to 9 months after the servicemember leaves active duty. Under these conditions and during this 

time, no servicemember can be foreclosed on absent a court order. 

In addition to amendments to the SCRA, Congress has provided 

other important protections through other laws as well. 

Beginning in February 2009, it provided $855 million as part of 

the stimulus package to expand pre-existing Homeowner’s Assistance Program benefits. This addresses the unique economic pressures faced by military personnel who are required to relocate 

under military orders during the adverse housing market conditions. 

Later in 2009, Congress recognized that because most servicemembers rent and are not homeowners, they faced particular difficulties when their landlords are foreclosed upon. The Helping 

Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 provides significant protections when such servicemembers face possible displacement. 

Although these two statutes do not amend the SCRA, they recognize that servicemembers face challenges with their housing that 

in some ways puts them at greater risk than those not in service. 

These amendments to the SCRA and the other powerful statutory provisions discussed earlier mean little if our servicemembers 

do not know about them. 

The Service secretaries are directed to ensure that their members know about the benefits and the protections of the SCRA. This 

educational process involves coordinated and overlapping efforts. 

The Military Legal Assistance Program provides the first line of 

defense for servicemembers; however, if they are unable to resolve 

the matter, the servicemember may be referred to civilian counsel 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

1Section 105, Codified at 50 USC App. § 515. 

or be directed to seek representation through several different 

State and other pro bono programs. 

The Department’s efforts to educate servicemembers and their 

families centers around the installation and around various reserve 

component mobilization and demobilization processing centers. 

These reserve component processing centers are particularly critical because two of the most important economic protections and 

benefits, the 6-percent interest rate cap and the protections against 

foreclosure only apply to pre-service obligations. Accordingly, those 

most likely to benefit from these protections are in fact Reservists 

and National Guardsmen called to active duty. 

Because each of the services have the authority to best determine 

how to provide the necessary training and counseling, the Department has asked the services to set out how they educate their 

members about the SCRA. 

The timing of the request did not allow time to gather this data 

from the services and then organize it in a way to show how this 

information is presented to the servicemember; therefore, that information will be submitted separately as soon as possible. 

I look forward to answering your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Shumake appears on p. 78.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel, you just mentioned the fact 

that each individual service was ensuring that their members understand their rights under SCRA. I would like to have those responses by the 28th of this month, and again remembering that the 

letter to the secretary asks that the Department’s efforts to educate 

the servicemember and their families in private industry about the 

protections afforded in affirmative responsibilities placed upon 

servicemembers under SCRA. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Yes, sir. 

[The DoD subsequently provided the following information:] 

1. General Responsibilities and Overview 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) states that the Secretaries concerned are responsible for educating their members about its benefits and protections.1 Their efforts are supplemented by programs, personnel, and resources at the 

Department of Defense (‘‘the Department’’) level and through close contacts between 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the 

legal and financial readiness communities for the Services. 

Through these combined efforts our servicemembers receive multiple opportunities to gain enough information about the SCRA and know when to seek more indepth information from those legal and financial advisors who have more specialized 

knowledge. The main educational effort, as a practical matter, falls to the legal community, although the commander has ultimate responsibility for the mission readiness of the troops. 

Accordingly, much of this document focuses on the judge advocate communities 

and their efforts and responsibilities not only to brief the troops and make educational materials readily available online to the force, but also to train the trainers 

in the school house environment. 

In addition, the Department’s network of Personal Financial Managers (PFMs) 

plays a significant role in the SCRA educational process, given that many of the 

SCRA’s provisions directly impact finances, such as the interest rate cap of 50 USC 

App. § 527 and the mortgage protections of 50 USC App. § 533 (hereinafter ‘‘sections 

527,’’ and ‘‘section 533’’). These PFMs are trained to alert the servicemembers about 

the general protections available and to refer them to the free, confidential legal assistance services available under 10 USC § 1044. Because of the relationship between general financial well-being and mission readiness, a general overview of the 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Department’s efforts to ensure the financial readiness of our servicemembers will 

be addressed in paragraph 7, below. 

2. SCRA Focus: Mobilization, De-Mobilization and Deployment 

The provisions that are the primary focus on this hearing are found in section 527 

(interest rate cap) and section 533 (no foreclosure without a court order for certain 

obligations). Both of these sections apply only to obligations incurred before active 

duty (i.e., ‘‘pre-service’’). The interest rate cap has its greatest protections with respect to mortgages. The interest rate cap for pre-service mortgage obligations extends during active duty and for 1 year after leaving active duty. Because of this 

pre-service condition, those who most stand to benefit from this protection are those 

members of the Reserve Component—Reservists and National Guardsmen—entering active duty. The majority of those currently involved in the ongoing war efforts 

are members of the Army. Accordingly, the focus of SCRA training for these members is at the Reserve Component processing centers. 

The Army’s Readiness and Deployment Checklist for members of the Reserve 

Component lists SCRA training as one of the required blocks of instructions. Every 

Reserve Component unit that goes through a mobilization center run by First Army 

receives a briefing about the SCRA. First Army processes virtually all Army Reserve 

and Army National Guard units. 

The opposite side of the coin from mobilizations and deployments is demobilizations. This offers another important opportunity to inform members of the force 

about their rights under the SCRA. Given that the protections of both section 527 

and 533 extend for a period after active duty, these briefings are particularly important for members of the Reserve Component. 

The Army Vice Chief of Staff has directed that the Reserve Component’s mandatory demobilization briefings be standardized. Such training will include SCRA instruction. It appears that similar efforts are underway in the Army to standardize 

the mobilization briefings as well. 

Representatives from the National Guard Bureau indicate that when considering 

pre-mobilization and mobilization training, both at home station and at the reserve 

processing centers, that Army National Guard units receive multiple SCRA briefings 

during the deployment cycle. 

For the Army, both regular (Active Component) and Reserve Component Soldiers 

deploying individually (as opposed to mobilizing and deploying with a unit) will 

process though a Continental United States Replacement Center (CRC). The SCRA 

is specifically covered in the CRC briefings. 

In all cases, deploying Soldiers must complete a DA Form 7631, Deployment Cycle 

Support checklist. This form has a specific block to indicate the Soldier has been 

briefed on the availability of legal assistance and that ‘‘counseling on civil matters’’ 

was received. 

3. Accessions (Initial Entry Training) 

The military Services are tasked with providing SCRA information to initial accessions. 

The Marines provide enlistees with a copy of NAVMC 11494, a form that explains 

basic SCRA benefits and protections. 

The Navy provides enlistees information about the SCRA in their Recruit Training Guides. Although there are no formal lessons covering it, the material is testable 

and ensures the material is in the same location as all formal lessons. 

The Army provides SCRA training to some in basic training, although it is not 

standardized. The U.S. Army Recruiting Command, however, has indicated that it 

will update its training annexes to include SCRA material. The annexes are part 

of the recruiting packet. 

Airmen receive standardized SCRA training during basic training. 

Although all opportunities to familiarize servicemembers with the basics of the 

SCRA are important, the Department recognizes that the tremendous amount of 

other information provided new accessions may limit their ability to process and retain SCRA information. Therefore, the Services also rely on additional installation 

and deployment readiness training. 

4. Reaching the Force: Installation/Headquarters Training 

The bulk of the education of servicemembers and their families concerning the 

SCRA is handled at the installation. The installation focuses more on the regular 

members of the force than on the Reserve Component, but as noted, Army Reserve 

Component units are well covered during the mobilization process. Still, a number 

of provisions of the SCRA and the other Congressional legislative initiatives provide 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

2Section 303, Public Law 111–275, October 13, 2010, amended the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 USC App. § 501 et seq.) by adding at the end new title VIII, Civil Liability. 

important benefits and protections for all servicemembers and are the subject of significant educational efforts at the installation level. 

SCRA education at the installation level is considered an essential part of the 

command’s preventive law responsibilities. Each of the Services has the responsibility to ensure that preventive law services are provided within their command. Realistically, this program is implemented by judge advocates. It can take many forms. 

Perhaps the most important preventive law effort is accomplished during installation readiness exercises at which servicemembers process through various stations, 

including legal assistance. Some services provided at these stations include the 

preparation of wills and powers of attorneys. Sometimes information papers will be 

provided, including basic information on the SCRA. Some installation readiness exercises involve actual SCRA briefings. 

Other installation preventive law efforts include articles in the installation newspapers on hot topics or new legal developments, including refreshers on the benefits 

and protections of the SCRA. Another example of preventive law includes ‘‘newcomers’ briefings,’’ which provide basic legal information for those new to an installation. These briefings are open to servicemembers and often their families. It is not 

likely that all of these briefings address SCRA issues, but they at a minimum alert 

potential clients to the availability of the local legal resources. 

• Online and Service Headquarters Resources/Efforts 

Local Web sites are another method of providing information to an evolving and 

increasingly technologically savvy force. Many major installations have legal assistance Web sites with some general SCRA information. These local Web sites are supplemented by headquarters-level Web sites and other online resources. 

The Headquarters-level Air Force legal assistance policy office Web site has been 

robustly pitched to its members. In 2010 alone, the Web site had more than 133,000 

visitors. This Web site contains updated SCRA information. The Air Force legal assistance policy office also contributed to a live blog that had almost 10,000 visitors 

and 219, 294 Twitter impressions. The Headquarters-level Departments of the Army 

and Navy legal assistance policy offices also have online resources with specific 

SCRA information available to all their members. 

The Navy legal assistance policy office has developed an on-line pre-deployment 

briefing that is being formatted by the Navy distance learning staff for complete access by all Sailors from any location. The Army is developing a similar resource and 

has been field testing it at one installation with good success. 

This Navy legal assistance policy office has also developed a ‘‘legal readiness 

check-up’’ that will direct Sailors to their nearest legal assistance office based on 

a number of deployment-related legal issues, including many that involve SCRA 

protections. 

In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps legal assistance policy offices provide 

legal assistance practice advisories to the field to alert it of changes in law. These 

go to all Naval Judge Advocates and have included recent advisories on the Helping 

Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2009 and the Veteran’s Benefit Act of 2010. 

The Army legal assistance policy office publishes periodic electronic newsletters 

and conducts video training conferences with the field. Those have addressed SCRA 

and mortgage foreclosure issues. All the Services’ legal assistance policy offices regularly push new developments to their installation-level legal offices. 

• Department of Defense Office of Legal Policy 

This office meets regularly with Chiefs of Legal Assistance for the Services and 

shares new developments to ensure consistent, across-the-Services awareness of all 

types of legal assistance issues. The Office of Legal Policy meets informally with 

staffers from the House and Senate to share information and respond to requests 

for comments on legislative proposals, many involving the SCRA. These proposals 

are staffed with the Chiefs of Legal Assistance for the Services for expert advice and 

dissemination. 

In 2009, this office drafted and submitted the private right of action language as 

part of the Department’s proposed draft authorization bill for FY 2010. In only 

slightly modified form, that proposal became the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010.2

This provision ensures that those whose protections and benefits under the SCRA 

have been violated or denied can actually bring legal action and recover monetary 

damages and attorneys’ fees. This is likely the most important change to the SCRA 

since the sweeping changes in 2003. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

3Section 1001, Public Law 111–5, February 17, 2009, codified at 42 USC § 3374. 4Public Law 119–97, November 11, 2009, amended section 511 of the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (50 USC App. § 571). 5Sections 701, Public Law 111–22, May 20, 2009. 

In January 2011, the Office of Legal Policy worked with experts on the SCRA 

from the private sector who had written an article addressing the new private right 

of action language enacted as part of the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010. The Office 

of Legal Policy was able to obtain a commitment from the editors of the Army’s 

Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School to publish a scholarly article in 

The Army Lawyer. The article was drafted by Professor Gregory M. Huckabee, a 

former Army judge advocate who teaches at the University of South Dakota, and 

who served as the Army representative and Chair of the 1991–1992 Department of 

Defense Task Force responsible for revamping the Soldiers’ and Sailors Civil Relief 

Act, the precursor to the current SCRA; and by Colonel (Retired) John Odom, U.S. 

Air Force Reserve, a nationally recognized expert on the SCRA who currently is in 

private practice in Shreveport, Louisiana. 

As part of its general outreach responsibilities, the Office of Legal Policy has participated in a number of print, blog, and televised interviews on various legal topics 

such the SCRA, the Homeowner’s Assistance Program,3 the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act,4 and the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.5 These 

efforts focused on getting the information to the individual servicemembers and 

alerting them to the availability of help from the military legal assistance offices 

across the country and the world. 

The Department of Defense, though the Office of Legal Policy, has reached out 

directly to the force through direct e-mails to alert them to new developments in 

the law impacting their financial and legal well-being. 

In September 2008, as the mortgage crisis worsened and before the Homeowner’s 

Assistance Program became law as part of the February 2009 stimulus package, 

over one million servicemembers were informed by e-mail drafted by the Office of 

Legal Policy of a change to the Joint Federal Travel Regulations that allowed 

servicemembers to be relocated at government expense if their landlord was foreclosed on. That protection preceded the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 

2009, which provided protections applicable to everyone—not just servicemembers— 

whose landlord was foreclosed on. 

This e-mail assures them that protections and resources for dealing with the financial difficulties that were sweeping the country in late 2008 were available. It 

mentioned general SCRA protections against evictions and that legal proceedings 

could be delayed. It referred the servicemember to installation family readiness and 

support centers, to Military OneSource counselors, and to the local legal assistance 

offices. 

This across-the-force-message was supplemented by a series of postings on every 

servicemember’s pay statement (the Leave and Earnings Statement) throughout 

2009. These messages were concise and to the point: 

‘‘RENT, MORTGAGE, EVICTION, OR FORECLOSURE DIFFICULTIES? GET 

FREE, CONFIDENTIAL HELP. VISIT YOUR MILITARY LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

OFFICE OR CALL MILITARY ONESOURCE AT 1–800–342–9647.’’ 

An alternative message said: 

HOUSING DIFFICULTIES? SEE YOUR MILITARY LEGAL ASSISTANCE OFFICE OR CALL MILITARY ONESOURCE AT 1–800–342–9647. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Petraeus, the press release that Treasury 

sent out announcing the Bureau talked about a hotline that was 

going to be set up for consumers, and I guess the question is has 

the hotline been established? And if it is, is there an option for 

servicemembers to ask questions about SCRA? 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. We have taken the first step, which is to get our 

Web site up and running, so you can contact us that way, and I 

have just been in discussions to make sure that we do ask that 

question, are you military, so we can be sure to address their particular issues. That is as far as we have gotten so far. We are just 

still in the process of building the organization. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many people will staff the hotline or do you 

even know at this point? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. Don’t know at this point. We are just—we are 

still figuring out a lot of these things. 

The CHAIRMAN. Since the SCRA statute doesn’t provide for enforcement authority to the Bureau, what role would you find yourself playing with SCRA? 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. I think our role is definitely going to be an educational one. Although we don’t enforce it, we can certainly educate 

about it and that is a big part of our mission, really, to educate the 

military, to provide them the best possible financial education, and 

obviously one part of that can be to talk about the SCRA. 

So we will be working with the Department of Defense to see if 

we can find ways to get that information out there so it is retained. 

You heard Captain Rowles mention that sometimes the basic 

training is not the best time to get all this financial information because you are stressed, you are tired, you are worried about the 

next chow call and your next formation and you just don’t absorb 

it, so we have to work with them and see if we can find a way to 

teach it so people do retain it and really understand it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, how does DoD measure the level of 

knowledge of its servicemembers of their rights and responsibilities 

under SCRA? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, it is difficult to tell how any one person 

understands it or in fact at those pre-deployment briefings whether 

it is sinking in. You really don’t know until they kind of show up 

in your office as a legal assistance attorney and you start going 

through it. 

Certainly there are provisions that I think people don’t grasp. I 

think there is a lot of misunderstanding about even the main topics 

today with respect to the interest rate cap, for instance that it only 

applies to pre-service obligations. Many times folks don’t know 

that. 

Likewise, I would say that with some of the latest changes, you 

know, you have to keep pushing it out, you have to be sure that 

those changes such as I mentioned where we have extended it from 

90 days to 9 months on the foreclosure protections that prevent a 

foreclosure, again on a pre-service mortgage obligation only, that 

cannot happen without a court order. 

So we are always—we have to stay on top of that because even 

that was extended in the last—about the last act of the last Congress where that sunset provision that would have taken that 9 

months back down to 90 days was changed. 

And so it is a constant effort in part on my office working closely 

with the chiefs of legal assistance for the services to make sure everyone understands it and we push that information out to the 

field through a number of different ways. 

But again, sir, it is hard to measure what any one person understands or how they perceive it, we just have to keep training on 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. If a servicemember notified a base legal officer 

that they thought there were potential violations of SCRA, what 

actions would you expect the legal staff to take? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Well, sir, I would. You know, a lawyer is always going to be hesitant unless perhaps they are sitting across 

the table in litigation from saying bad things about what another 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

lawyer has done, but in listening to Captain Rowles’ testimony, I 

have to say that I was very disappointed if our legal assistance attorneys says, ‘‘Jeez, I just don’t know this or I don’t think I can 

help you.’’ 

You know, I don’t know everything about the law and no one 

does, but I know how to pick up the phone, and I would expect that 

our folks would pick up the phone and take some of that pressure 

off these folks, particularly if the client happened to be Captain 

Rowles’ wife while he is deployed, I would hope that we would fight 

for her. And sometimes that is just wading through the bureaucracy and it is just getting them to the point where, you know, you 

can get somebody to listen by saying, ‘‘No, I need to talk to somebody who understands the SCRA, I need to talk to your boss.’’ That 

is what I would expect. 

You know, hard again to say what happened and what information was passed, but I know that is how I would do business if I 

was a legal assistance attorney and they came to me. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate you bringing up the fact that the 

base legal officer in Pensacola or the JAG that he went to, basically 

said it was out of his lane, and I don’t think that is an appropriate 

response. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, it is not, this is their lane, this is what 

we do, and we have—we don’t need to set up a SCRA office specifically, we have legal assistance offices, we need to train, we need 

to make sure they are trained. We have to take care of our folks 

and represent them zealously, that is what our responsibility is. It 

is not any different when we put on this suit. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Filner. 

Mr. FILNER. Like the Chairman I appreciate that strong statement of what you should be doing. 

I would take it a bit further. For example, when this story broke 

and it was clear there were problems did you talk about sending 

letters to the banks about SCRA laws? As we heard there are only 

four banks that do 70 percent of the mortgage business, did you 

talk about that? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, what we did was I made sure that the information got out and I had talked to JPMorgan Chase and I had 

their hotline, I made sure that that got down through all the chiefs 

of legal assistants down to the lowest level. 

Mr. FILNER. Yes, but did you tell JPMorgan Chase or Citibank 

or Bank of America or Wells Fargo what SCRA required? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, not in this case. 

Mr. FILNER. Okay, you didn’t. Did Secretary Gates think about 

calling in the presidents of those 20 institutions or 10 institutions 

or 4 and say, hey, is what occurred ridiculous. This was a major 

story and it still is? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FILNER. Did Secretary Gates say we have to protect our people and make sure the banks know? Did that happen? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, I can’t really comment on what Secretary 

Gates thought about that, sir. I don’t know. 

Mr. FILNER. It didn’t happen. 

I just would go beyond the pure legal matter because the fact 

that this is not known, and that this is your responsibility. As you 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

said, to take the pressure off these military families. That means 

going further. I heard from this hearing several things that we 

should be doing, but you should have recommended these actions. 

Look, the simple fact of having on a bank application a box to 

check that you are protected by SCRA—I don’t know how you 

phrase that, but you could figure it out—it should be on every 

mortgage application. So everybody has a check mark to make. 

Why shouldn’t banks have to certify their awareness of this when 

they get these $25 billion checks from the government? I think the 

banks ought to contribute to a fund to set up the SCRA office or 

an ombudsman. You are taking a very bureaucratic approach, the 

banks are taking an ultra bureaucratic because nobody is responsibility in a bureaucracy. 

Instead of taking what I will call a political stance, get the 

damned presidents of JPMorganChase and the Bank of America 

into a room and say you have responsibility here. Don’t send us the 

150th ranking executive vice president, but take responsibility for 

this. Bring them into the room. Tell Secretary Gates I said that. 

I won’t ask you how high you are up in the chain of command 

because there are probably thousands between you and the Secretary. 

We have to protect these people. The banks aren’t doing their 

job, we can expect that, but we could pass laws that make them 

do their job. We are their protectors, we should be doing our job, 

and if that means that you—I mean I don’t know how you are 

going to relate to Justice or DoD, Mrs. Petraeus, but I mean the 

enforcement has to be done, and these banks will not respond as 

we have heard unless there is some legal consequence to their action. Nobody is responsible. 

You know, the SCRA code fell from the applications. All these 

codes are sitting around waiting to fall down? This is ridiculous. 

I think we have to pinpoint responsibility—I mean you have to 

talk to these guys directly. Put them on the spot, have them take 

responsibility for what is going on in their own bank. 

I suspect that the President of JPMorgan Chase still doesn’t even 

know what SCRA means, because somehow it is going to be taken 

care of and they are going to send out their $70 checks and make 

people whole. 

So I think you said a very strong statement, Colonel, but you 

have to expand that into the existing way we learn things and the 

way we do things. 

I don’t know but I assume the military could have everybody’s 

e-mail address. Send out an e-mail that says do you know what 

SCRA is? Here it is in writing. If you don’t understand it call us 

at this number. We could do that to the vast majority of our troops. 

We have the Rowleses, the tip of the spear for tens of thousands 

of others, so let us notify the tens of thousands of others. They 

don’t know what is going on. 

I can’t believe from the testimony that there are only 18 soldiers 

who have been foreclosed on by Chase mortgage. That is inconceivable to me with their millions of loans. 

Talk to Secretary Gates and tell him to bring in these presidents 

and do something. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, if I might point out we have sent out emails to every single servicemember active and reserve on the foreclosure issues. 

Mr. FILNER. Could you give me a copy of that? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

[The DoD subsequently provided the following information:] 

Below is the email that was sent out in September 2008 to every Active and Reserve member. It deals with financial problems in general and evictions related to 

foreclosure of landlords specifically. 

––––––––––Original Message–––––––––– 

From: AFLA2008 

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:49 PM 

To: 

Subject: Information about Armed Forces legal assistance for financial matters 

(00317711 32) 

If you are struggling financially, you are not alone. You can get help. 

Recently the economic news across the country has not been good. Consumer 

prices are rising. Real estate prices are falling. 

Foreclosures are up. Often this impacts renters too, who are forced to relocate 

when their landlords are forced into foreclosure. 

Military members face many of these same challenges. 

A new law allows the government to pay for some local moves when military 

members or their dependents are forced to move because their landlord is facing 

foreclosure. There are also a number of laws specifically designed to help military 

members when they face economic or legal difficulties. 

Legal proceedings can be delayed. Military members generally cannot be evicted 

unless a court orders it. Mortgages can be renegotiated. Grants or low cost loans 

may be available. 

If you are having problems making ends meet or are being forced to move from 

your rented home, you can get free, confidential help from a number of sources: 

—Your Installation Family Readiness/Support Center can provide financial 

counselors. 

—Your military legal assistance office can provide a licensed attorney. This 

Web site will identify the military legal assistance office closest to you: 

http://legalassistance.law.af.mil/content/locator.php 

—Military OneSource can provide financial counselors—24/7—by calling, 

toll-free, 1–800–342–9647. 

P.S. Responses to this email will not be answered. Please direct your questions to your legal assistance office or the Military OneSource Web site at 

www.MilitaryOneSource.com 

Mr. FILNER. Okay. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. We have also put it on their LES’s. Everybody 

gets that, everybody looks at that. 

Mr. FILNER. Tell me what an LES is. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. I am sorry, leave and earning statement. Your 

paycheck or basically your pay receipt. We have put the information on that. And so you have to be careful on how much you 

can—— 

Mr. FILNER. All right, I would like to see what you are doing, because—— 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FILNER [continuing]. Sometimes this stuff becomes so bureaucratic that nobody either pays attention or understand them. 

I would have put a big red notice in there that says stop, are you 

a homeowner? Then you may be having problems. I doubt that is 

what you did. You probably put a little line that says don’t forget 

that the SCRA, which you learned in school, should be applied. But 

listen, these kids learn in different ways, you need to hit them on 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

the head in different ways, and this stuff is serious, and we just 

can’t assume that they are going to have the responsibility to read 

a little bureaucratic line on there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The DoD subsequently provided the following information:] 

There were two different Leave and Earning Statement (LES) remarks used in 

2009 for the housing/mortgage crisis—both including the Military ONESOURCE 

number. They are listed below: 

RENT, MORTGAGE, EVICTION, OR FORECLOSURE DIFFICULTIES? GET 

FREE, CONFIDENTIAL HELP. VISIT YOUR MILITARY LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

OFFICE OR CALL MILITARY ONESOURCE AT 1–800–342–9647. 

HOUSING DIFFICULTIES? SEE YOUR MILITARY LEGAL ASSISTANCE OFFICE OR CALL MILITARY ONESOURCE AT 1–800–342–9647. 

We also ran a MILITARY PAY NEWSLETTER Article in September 2008 (this 

is specific to members who are renting private housing that is foreclosed and they 

are not the owner): 

‘‘Foreclosure’’ 

An armed forces member who relocates from, or whose dependent(s) relocate from leased or rented private housing by reason of a foreclosure action 

against the landlord, is authorized a short distance move (this provision 

does not apply if a member and/or dependent(s) are the homeowner). 

The household goods move is to another dwelling from which the member 

is to commute daily to the permanent duty station (or at a location at which 

the dependent(s) reside). 

Before using this authority, a member is encouraged to exhaust remedies 

available under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 USC, Appendix 

531) and State law. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act limits evictions of 

servicemembers or their dependents to court orders during periods of military service. It also empowers the courts to stay proceedings for a period 

of 90 days (may be shorter or longer if the judge determines it is needed) 

or adjust the obligation under the lease. Consult your legal office for specific 

situations. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have votes coming up in just a few minutes, 

so Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Petraeus, in your statement did you say that for the military 

families that the second issue of stress is financial? 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. Yes, the Department of Defense did a survey, I 

don’t have the details of that survey, but I did say—it was of 

servicemembers, I believe, not family members—and I said that 

they considered their finances to be the second largest source of 

stress, and that was ahead of deployments, health, family, and 

war, so. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Colonel, and I want to get back to the whole suicide issue because I know, you know, finances are very stressful 

and what the Rowleses went through is just unbelievable, and for 

suicides within the military, do you follow up on why a suicide occurs—had occurred? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, I would have to get back with you on that. 

I don’t have the visibility on that followup in the suicide world. 

[The DoD subsequently provided the following information:] 

There is a general consensus based on recent studies that bad economic times contribute to increases in suicides. From that broad conclusion, one could more narrowly conclude that an individual’s own financial difficulties could be a stressor contributing to suicide. 

• Department of Defense Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of 

the Armed Forces Report, August 2010. This report at pages 11 and 12 notes 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

many historical factors affecting suicide rates, including exposure to trauma 

and access to lethal means, but it goes on to note that a number of additional 

layers of complexity require consideration. Two of those are noted: the impact 

of multiple deployments and the use of Internet-based communications with 

family while deployed. The report at page 44 also states that failed relationships and mental health diagnoses were primary stressors. This report does 

not specifically note economic factors, but they might reasonably be considered 

to arise as an effect of multiple deployments. (http://www.health.mil/dhb/ 

downloads/Suicide%20Prevention%20Task%20Force%20final%20report%208-23- 

10.pdf) 

• Army Health Promotion Risk Reduction Suicide Prevention Report, 2010. This 

report concludes that economic difficulties are potentially magnified for servicemembers. It suggests that is a stressor potentially impacting the suicide rates. 

(http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p600l24.pdf) Rand Study: The War Within, 

Preventing Suicide in the U.S. Military. This report at page 35 does mention 

financial hardships as a stressor that could affect suicide rates. (http:// 

www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RANDlMG953.pdf) 

• Department of Defense Suicide Event Report for 2008. This report at page 23 

indicates that excessive debt or bankruptcy was reported for 10 percent of suicides. (https://dodser.t2.health.mil/) 

• Department of Defense Suicide Event Report for 2009. This report at page 2 indicates that excessive debt or bankruptcy was reported for 11 percent of suicides. (https://dodser.t2.health.mil/) 

• ‘‘Relationship between Economy, Unemployment and Suicide,’’ prepared by the 

Suicide Prevention Resource Center, November 12, 2008. It notes that a review 

of the last two decades of literature suggests ‘‘a strong relationship exists 

between unemployment, the economy, and suicide.’’ This article did not focus 

on the military. (http://www.sprc.org/library/EconomylUnemploymentlandl

Suicidel2008.pdf) 

Mr. MICHAUD. If you could I would appreciate it, because I can’t 

help but believe with the number of suicides in the military that 

it has not been caused by, you know, financial stress. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. And you mean specifically a report that goes 

back and tries to characterize kind of an autopsy if you will in 

what happened? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Well, I mean has there been a conclusion or been 

suicide notes, you know, I just can’t stand it anymore because I 

can’t make my mortgage payments or stuff like that. Has there 

been any reports done on suicide rates in the military of why they 

have occurred? If you can follow up. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. If we have it I will find out. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Yeah. Because my concern is, and we heard the 

representative for JPMorgan this morning apologize and they are 

going to pay seven and a half percent interest, which I think is just 

unbelievable when you look at the chief executive officer of 

JPMorgan a $28 million bonus in 2007. 

I guess my concern, and I come from the manufacturing sector 

of the paper industry, and unfortunately some of the paper industry they violate a lot of environmental laws, and when I asked actually one of them why they do it and they said, well, you know, 

it is cheaper to violate the law, it is just the cost of doing business. 

And that is a concern that I have when you look at the violations 

that we heard this morning and the fact that seven and a half percent. 

Actually what I would like to see is the Justice Department find 

someone who actually had committed suicide and it is related to financial stress and actually hold a corporation liable under the 

Wrongful Death Act and that is when we actually will start seeing 

companies really follow the law versus paying a penalty because of 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

the cost of doing business, and that is really where we are going 

to actually get the law followed is if we do have a hammer there 

to do that. 

So I want to thank you both for coming this morning. I appreciate your testimony. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I thank you, 

you are certainly starting out with the promises you made when 

you assumed the Chairmanship of this Committee and holding 

pointed, important hearings for your veterans and their families, so 

thank you for that. 

To the Ranking Member your passion is also there, Mr. Ranking 

Member, and I appreciate it. I have to tell you though having been 

an enlisted soldier for 24 years I have to tell these guys to wear 

their helmet at times, and it becomes really hard. Those are the 

things I want them to focus on, the things like how do you set that 

head spacing timing on that .50 caliber, how do you get your mission done? And it becomes quite burdensome to try. 

And you know, this is where I think there is a shared responsibility in the country and a corporate ethic to go a little above and 

beyond. And I am not absolving those soldiers of personal responsibility, Lord knows, they can get themselves into some of that, they 

can help get out of some of it, but I have to tell you one thing for 

you Colonel that I said, it is hard for them to remember it all. 

I know when I was able to resolve some of these and they were 

specifically car loan issues with young soldiers of doing that on a 

deployment. A senior NCO on the phone who has had a little more 

experience with talking to people cutting through the bureaucracy 

really made a difference. 

My question to you is do you get reports on that? I never filed 

a report on that and I did a bunch of these where there were issues 

of they were violating the rules of the law, we went in, we corrected them, and I will give credit in most cases these auto 

financers were pretty good about working it out and were being 

pretty good citizens, but no one reported that. So do you think you 

have an actual number? Do you think you have a grasp of how big 

a deal this is? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, it is hard to tell, particularly when you 

are looking at the fact that you have attorneys, and usually it is 

going to be the attorneys. Of course if it is a senior NCO doing it, 

no, sir, we are not going to hear about that. We are not going to 

know, they are going take care of business like they do. 

Mr. WALZ. Would you guess that is more common? I mean that 

is my personal experience, I can’t say if that is an—— 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, I kind of—I guess I come from a, you 

know, the legal focus and so I don’t hear so many cases of that. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. I kind of hope that first sergeant sends them 

to legal assistance and I kind of hope that legal assistance attorney 

is doing what I described earlier. 

And we do get reports—of course, you know, you can’t tell exactly 

what is going on in the attorney/client world, but the services will 

report the number of clients they see overall and they break it 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

down into certain categories, and one of the categories generally is 

SCRA. 

I know that for the Marines they—I think it is the Marines— 

they have the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Act—— 

Mr. WALZ. Right. 

Colonel SHUMAKE [continuing]. Which is the re-employment 

rights, they kind of mixed categories, so I just kind of have to guess 

on that. 

But there is a general overall report that you could track depending on how good their system is in the past. I do know that right 

now I can get a snapshot of how many—— 

Mr. WALZ. So you feel fairly comfortable that you are getting a— 

least a—how did you come to know about the JPMorgan issue? Did 

they come to you? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Sir, I got a call from a Senate staffer who 

asked if I heard anything about it, and I then called my friends in 

the American Bankers Association and my office does have contacts 

with—— 

Mr. WALZ. That is great. 

Colonel SHUMAKE [continuing]. With the ABA. I have given 

Webinars for those guys on two occasions. 

Mr. WALZ. That is great. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Gone out to the banking—— 

Mr. WALZ. So this work—I mean as far as the reporting and stuff 

you wouldn’t want it—we never want it to happen, but you think 

the followup afterwards works? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. I think it was good, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Because it was the ABA, after I made the call 

to the ABA the next thing I know I got a call from one of their attorneys who said JPMorgan Chase would be giving me a call. So 

once I got that—— 

Mr. WALZ. I think that needs to be noted because there is a help 

and I know the Chairman mentioned about ABA and reaching out 

to them, that is smart. Because what we want to do is we want 

to alleviate this, we want to make sure that it doesn’t happen, put 

safeguards in, but the biggest thing is never to have it happen in 

the first place. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Yes, sir. And so I think from that information 

we can then—my office could push it down and we had the hotline 

out because the JPMorgan Chase piece ran on The Today Show on 

the 17th. 

Mr. WALZ. Great. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. We had it out that weekend. 

Mr. WALZ. Colonel, can you tell me, and just maybe as an example of how this is—the difficulty of this as you mentioned. I think 

of myself in my situation. I signed up when I was 17, I didn’t buy 

my first house until I was 33, I deployed 7 years after that. I actually wouldn’t have been covered then, correct, because I had the 

loan during service? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. That is correct. The mortgage protection on 

first the interest rate cap is pre-service and so is the foreclosure 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

piece. And again, all the foreclosure piece says is that you have to 

have a court order to do it. 

Mr. WALZ. So for a National Guard soldier like me my life situation obviously changed greatly from 17 to 40 when I am deployed, 

children, home, all of that, but because of the nature of the way 

this is set up, I was not afforded those protections because I would 

have already been in the service when I got the loan. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Well, it has to be a pre-service, so I think if 

you had some gaps in there you might be able to make your argument. 

Mr. WALZ. But if you are National Guard the whole time the way 

I understand this you are not; is that correct? 

Colonel SHUMAKE. Well, no, sir, if you left—it is not so much that 

you are in active service in the National Guard, it is that you are 

on active duty. 

Mr. WALZ. Yeah. 

Colonel SHUMAKE. That is the key. 

Mr. WALZ. But if you were a technician or any of these people 

do they—— 

Colonel SHUMAKE. The technician—I am going to pass on the 

technician because that is about as complicated as it gets. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I appreciate it, but I do think your point is right 

about explaining this out. 

My last question, Mrs. Petraeus on this is, I have to tell you I 

talk with a lot of my bankers. The CFPB is not their favorite organization at this point even though it is brand new. 

How are you going to get beyond that to say we are not here to 

persecute, we are here to help the consumers and you can help us 

make that happen? Are you feeling that? I mean are you feeling 

cooperation from these institutions? 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. Yeah, I think so. I mean part of our goal is to 

make a level playing field for consumers, and that doesn’t mean, 

you know, that we are anti-business. 

Mr. WALZ. Right. 

Mrs. PETRAEUS. And we do want to convey that message. And 

Professor Warren has been hard at work doing that. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. I just know that, you know, that perception is 

there, just wanted to know. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you to everybody 

for being here today, those that testified. 

Let me assure you if changes need to be made to the SCRA, we 

will work across the aisle with our colleagues to see that they are 

done. No servicemember in a fox hole or serving on the front line 

should have to worry about the roof over their family’s head back 

at home, and we will do everything we can to make sure that they 

are protected. 

With unanimous consent, all Members shall have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extent their remarks or extraneous material, 

and I thank all the Members for participating today, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
(62) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, 

Chairman, Full Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Good morning and welcome to the first oversight hearing of the House Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs of the 112th Congress. 

As we begin our important work on behalf of America’s veterans and servicemembers, I would like to point out that veterans are well-represented on this Committee. While our members look after the interests of all 23 million U.S. veterans 

and their families, some 12.2 million—over half of America’s veterans—reside in the 

States we represent. I am especially proud that 110,000 of those heroes reside in 

Florida’s First Congressional District. 

And that responsibility brings us to the subject of today’s hearing. 

I know the Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about today’s topic, 

but consistent with past practice, I would like to limit opening remarks to myself 

and the Ranking Member so that we may have more time to hear from our witnesses. Of course, Members are welcome and encouraged to submit their opening 

remarks for the record. 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act has existed in various forms since the War 

of 1812 and each version has shared a singular goal: to protect those who protect 

us. The 2003 revision, which I cosponsored, and the amendments we have made 

since, continue that tradition. I am committed to ensuring SCRA remains a relevant 

and viable tool and I know the Ranking Member and the rest of this Committee 

share in my commitment. 

My goal for this oversight hearing is to determine whether the SCRA afforded our 

servicemembers and their families are meeting their needs. We are all aware of related matters pending before the court. This is not intended to be a trial of any sort. 

I am not seeking to prejudice that or any future action in any direction. At the same 

time, it is important to recognize the obligations that exist under the law, and that 

this Committee has a duty to ensure that the law is working for active duty servicemembers. 

I have said recently, and I will say again now, that our Nation’s war fighters— 

and their families—should not have to fight to keep their piece of the American 

Dream while they are on foreign ground defending that fundamental right for all 

of us. 

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us. First, I thank Captain 

Jonathon Rowles (ROLLs) and his wife Julia, for their persistence in exercising 

their rights. Second, I thank JPMorgan Chase for reaching out to us, and more importantly, for admitting its mistakes and then making the efforts it has at rectifying 

them. 

I hope our witness from the Department of Defense will be able to assure us of 

the effectiveness of their program to educate servicemembers of their rights under 

SCRA. I also look forward to hearing from the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about how it can contribute to preventing similar occurrences 

in the future. 

What we have here is what some might call a ‘‘teachable moment.’’ For the financial services industry, the lesson is to understand the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act and to undertake the same sort of review as has Chase to ensure compliance. 

For DoD, it is time to review whether the services’ SCRA training programs are getting the job done. Finally, servicemembers are ultimately responsible for understanding their rights and responsibilities under SCRA and holding their financial 

institutions accountable. Today, we will be asking and listening for ways to ensure 

that these goals are met. 

Before we begin I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed to sit at 

the dais and be permitted to ask questions. Hearing no objection so ordered. I also 

want to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Brad Miller of North Carolina. Mr. Miller 

drafted legislation last congress on SCRA and I am happy that he is here today. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Filner, for his remarks. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, 

Ranking Democratic Member, Full Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Good morning, everyone. I’m glad you all could join us for this very important 

hearing today on overcharges by JPMorgan Chase on military families. I would also 

like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today. 

I believe this is a very important issue and is something that we should continue 

to monitor as the foreclosure crisis continues to unfold. I also want to thank all of 

our distinguished panelists for participating in today’s Committee hearing. I know 

that some of our panelists have traveled far distances to be here today. 

Today’s hearing seeks to examine why banks such as JPMorgan Chase have overcharged our military families who are actively engaged in defending our country. 

While we want to know how these overcharges happened, I also want to know 

what they are doing to prevent this from occurring again. 

As foreclosure filings continue to rise, the effect on Americans has been acute, 

with California having one of the most affected populations. According to 

RealtyTrac, California metro areas such as San Diego have been seriously affected 

by the foreclosures. 

Like most Americans, many of our Nation’s heroes see homeownership as an integral part of the American dream. Unfortunately, for a number of military families, 

that part of the American dream became a nightmare when JPMorgan foreclosed 

on their homes. It is my sincerest hope that JPMorgan Chase is taking immediate 

corrective steps to restore these families to their home as soon as possible. 

I personally have grave concerns for Marine Captain Rowles and his wife. They 

have been through a 5-year saga with the bank. 

It is unconscionable that any family would have to endure this kind of treatment—especially a military family. I strongly urge JPMorgan Chase to move as 

quickly as possible to do the right thing for them and all of the other military families who are affected. 

For many of our returning servicemembers and veterans, the stress of what they 

have gone through by serving in a war zone may still affect them. This is why the 

protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are there to provide protection for all of our military families. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope you and everyone else on the Committee will make a commitment today to stand up for veterans and their families by joining me in making 

these protections permanent for the military families. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of all our panelists so that we may better 

understand the problem and see what preventive strategies can be implemented to 

address the overcharges and unnecessary foreclosures on our Nation’s military families. 

Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and I 

thank all of our panelists for being here with us today. Your dedication to our Nation’s servicemembers and veterans is extremely important as we seek to identify 

and improve lending practices to protect military families, while continuing to allow 

opportunities for home ownership. 

Thank you and I yield back my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Filner, I want to thank you for promptly holding 

this hearing to delve into allegations of violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act (SCRA). Those serving in the uniform of the United States Military make tremendous sacrifices in their personal lives. The nature of their service often does not 

afford them the same opportunities that civilians have in managing their day-to-day 

lives. 

I was distraught to learn that financial institutions were remiss in providing 

servicemembers with the benefits the law affords to them. It is frustrating to learn 

of the unnecessary burdens that many servicemembers, such as Captain and Mrs. 

Rowles, have faced as they have answered the call of service to our Nation. 

It is my hope that this hearing will bring light to the overall impact of alleged 

violations and their prevalence in the financial sector. In addition I hope that sufficient remedies will be implemented and serve as a model to ensure that servicemember’s requesting protections under SCRA will be realized without delay. Today’s 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

hearing serves as an opportunity to identify shortfalls in implementation of this law 

and move forward in a productive manner so that we can better serve those who 

serve our Nation. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Barrow 

Thank you Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner. 

This is my first hearing as a Member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and I 

would like to express the honor and humility with which I serve on this Committee. 

We owe an extraordinary amount of gratitude to those who have served our country, 

and we still have a lot to do before we can say we have kept the promises we made 

to our veterans when they first joined up. Better enforcement of the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act is an important step in the right direction to keeping those promises. 

Proper adherence to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act makes our country safer 

and protects the families of our troops. Servicemembers should be able to devote 

themselves completely to the defense of the Nation. With the very real dangers they 

face in war they cannot be distracted by the thought of losing their home while serving and leaving their family on the street. But they will be distracted if the few 

times they hear from home they discover that their family is in danger of losing 

their home to an illegal foreclosure. The families of our troops already face undue 

stress while their loved ones serve abroad on active duty. 

I understand that JPMorgan Chase has taken steps to correct the accounting 

problems that violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, but we have to do better in the future. I look forward to hearing specifically how and why the protections 

under SCRA were not followed. More importantly, I want to hear specific suggestions on how we can improve the application of SCRA through oversight so that no 

one has to worry about losing their home because they have been called to active 

duty. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my first full Committee hearing and I am very 

honored to serve on this Committee to serve our veterans who have so honorably 

defended this Nation. 

In addition to the honor of serving on this Committee, I have the additional honor 

of serving as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. The 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) falls under the oversight of my Subcommittee. Over the past few days and weeks I have been learning about SCRA and 

the benefits and protections it affords to our servicemembers. I commend the work 

of previous Congresses on this legislation. 

With the amount of servicemembers currently deployed, it is of utmost importance 

that servicemembers and the financial institutions that handle their affairs are fully 

educated on the intricacies of the SCRA. Servicemembers must be fully focused on 

the mission abroad, not worrying about their personal affairs at home and wondering if they will come back to a foreclosed home. 

It is the duty of financial institutions to serve all their clients with the utmost 

respect and customer service but there is an increased responsibility to those clients 

who are serving overseas. Should mistakes be made by the financial institution, in 

this case JPMorgan Chase, steps must be taken to correct the problem and make 

it right for the men and women in uniform who were mistakenly charged a higher 

amount of interest rates and fees, or, in the worst cases, faced foreclosure on their 

homes while deployed. 

While I do not stand here today in judgment of any of the involved parties, I do 

have a strong interest in identifying any weaknesses in the SCRA and learning 

more about how servicemembers are informed of the rights and privileges afforded 

to them by the SCRA. Additionally, I am interested in learning more about the 

vulnerabilities in JPMorgan Chase’s SCRA compliance and the steps they are taking 

to correct their mistakes for servicemembers involved in wrongful interest charges 

on their mortgages and home foreclosures. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Many of you have served 

our Nation honorably in many different capacities. I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Russ Carnahan 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing on alleged violations 

of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by JPMorgan Chase Bank. 

Since the passing of the Soldier’s and Sailor’s Civil Relief Act in 1940, Congress 

has continuously recognized the importance of providing protections to servicemembers and their families to help relieve them of the civil and financial burdens 

they face while on active duty. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act simply expanded upon that original law by providing a broader range of protections including 

provisions that would reduce interest rates to 6 percent on mortgage loans and foreclosure projections. 

Upon hearing of these allegations, I was deeply troubled to know that one of the 

Nation’s largest financial institutions possibly disregarded the very Act that was put 

in place to protect our Nation’s heroes and their families. Although I am pleased 

to know that JPMorgan Chase has begun the process of refunding money to the 

more than 4,000 affected servicemembers that were overcharged and putting 14 

families back into their wrongfully foreclosed homes, I remain concerned that there 

may be more servicemembers and families affected by this matter. 

In this climate, in which the housing market is still struggling to stabilize, it is 

particularly important that all financial institutions adhere to the safeguards put 

forth to protect those very individuals that sacrifice so much for the good of our Nation. It is my hope that today’s hearing gives JPMorgan Chase the opportunity to 

explain their wrongdoings, to inform the Committee of their plans to quickly resolve 

these matters and ensure us that they will adhere to the protections under the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act moving forward. 

To all the witnesses today—thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules 

to appear before us. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Richard A. ‘‘Dick’’ Harpootlian, Esq., 

Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A., Columbia, SC 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Committee has invited testimony on the facts and circumstances surrounding 

the class action lawsuit filed in the District of South Carolina as Rowles v. Chase 

Home Finance, LLC. The testifying witness, Richard A. Harpootlian, is an attorney 

representing three members of the Armed Forces who serve as putative class representatives representing servicemembers who allegedly were denied benefits to 

which they were entitled under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by Chase Home 

Finance, LLC and Chase Auto Finance Corp. 

Whereas the lawsuit is still in its infancy, all facts are not yet known to the 

servicemembers. However, in statements to the press JPMorgan Chase has confirmed that at least 4,000 servicemen and servicewoman were denied the 6-percent 

interest cap on preexisting debts. Also, Chase Home Finance, LLC foreclosed on the 

homes of numerous servicemen and servicewomen (the exact number of which is not 

yet known). 

The individual plaintiffs in this case are Captain Jonathan Rowles of the United 

States Marine Corps, whose family was denied the 6-percent interest cap while he 

was deployed on active duty, Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Letts-Smith of the United 

States Army Reserve, whose home was foreclosed on while she was serving in Iraq, 

and Lance Corporal Martin Hupfl, whose automobile installment loan was terminated and placed into collections while he was in basic training. 

The damage to the servicemembers as a result of the SCRA violations not only 

financially harms the soldiers but also negatively affects their ability to serve in the 

military. Each of the plaintiffs in the Rowles case was forced to wrestle with debt 

collectors and threats of loan acceleration, foreclosure, and/or repossession while he 

or she was on active duty. This pressure cannot be overstated as it represented a 

threat not only to the financial well-being of the servicemembers, but to the physical 

well-being of the families that they left behind. 

Whatever facts this lawsuit may reveal, thus far it is clear that a systematic failure to adhere to the requirements of the SCRA has occurred. Congress should consider three areas in which the SCRA may be strengthened to deter future violations: 

(1) stronger criminal penalties for knowing violations; (2) civil fines for all violations 

with an incentive discount for self-reporting; and (3) an attorneys’ fee provision for 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

successful plaintiffs seeking to enforce their rights as servicemembers under the 

SCRA. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

I thank you for the invitation to speak on behalf of my clients—Captain Jonathan 

Rowles of the United States Marine Corps, Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Letts-Smith 

of the United States Army Reserve, and Lance Corporal Martin Hupfl of the United 

States Marine Corps. I represent these fine men and women in uniform along with 

my co-counsel, William Harvey and Graham Newman. 

As the Committee is aware, our law firms have filed a class action complaint 

against subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase alleging systematic violations of rights 

guaranteed to our men and women in uniform under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that have harmed thousands of our soldiers and their families. This litigation is in its earliest stages. No discovery has been conducted and I am limited by 

law as to what comments I may offer regarding the merits of these claims or any 

defenses thereto. I may, however, share with you the facts giving rise to my clients’ 

complaints, the difficulties they have suffered while serving our country, and suggestions that the Committee might entertain in hopes of preventing such occurrences in the future. 

The opening words of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act establish that the purpose of the law is ‘‘to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense 

through protection extended by this Act to servicemembers of the United States to 

enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ The venerable nature of these goals is undeniable. But to truly grasp the importance of the Act to our Nation as a whole, one must examine the history of the 

legislation through the last two centuries. 

I. History of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

The roots of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act lie in the Constitution itself. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution expressly grants to Congress the authority to 

build and maintain our Armed Forces in order to guarantee the security of this Nation. With this in mind, as early as the Civil War Congress recognized the need to 

enact legislation placing certain restrictions on civil actions that would hinder the 

abilities of an individual soldier or sailor to dedicate all of his efforts to defending 

this country. In 1917, as the United States became embroiled in World War I, our 

government employed the services of Major John Wigmore—then Dean of the Northwestern University Law School and author of the famous treatise Wigmore on Evidence—to draft the first modern version of the SCRA, then known as the ‘‘Soldiers’ 

and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act.’’ This Act instituted many of the regulations that are 

central features of the modern law, including a stay of civil actions and a prohibition 

of foreclosures upon the homes of those on active duty. 

Major Wigmore’s Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act expired 6 months after the 

end of World War I due to a sunset provision included in the initial draft. Thus, 

in 1940, as conflicts throughout the globe again escalated into World War, Congress 

reenacted Major Wigmore’s bill with some amendments. At the time, Congressman 

Overton Brooks of Louisiana reiterated the vital role the Act played in preserving 

the Nation’s defense and recognized the concerns the Act was intended to address. 

This bill springs from the desire of the people of the United States to 

make sure as far as possible that men in service are not placed at a civil 

disadvantage during their absence. It springs from the inability of men who 

are in service to properly manage their normal business affairs while away. 

It likewise arises from the differences in pay which a soldier receives and 

what the same man normally earns in civil life. 

The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act has been in effect since it was reenacted 

by Congressman Brooks and others in 1940. 

In April of 2003, as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan progressed, this 

Committee took the lead in the 108th Congress to style a complete restatement of 

the Act. The bill that originated in this Committee received broad bipartisan support, boasting as its sponsors then-Chairman Christopher Smith of New Jersey and 

Ranking Member Lane Evans of Illinois. In its Report to the House, the Committee 

expressly noted the following: 

Congress has long recognized that the men and women of our military 

services should have civil legal protections so they can ‘‘devote their entire 

energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ With hundreds of thousands of 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

servicemembers fighting in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, many 

of them mobilized from the reserve components, the Committee believes the 

Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) should be restated and 

strengthened to ensure that its protections meet their needs in the 21st 

century. 

Among the protections recognized as necessary in modern society were four rights 

directly implicated in the pending litigation involving my clients: (1) a 6-percent cap 

of interest chargeable on debts incurred prior to military service; (2) a prohibition 

of derogatory reports to credit agencies due to eligibility of SCRA protection; (3) limitations upon the ability to foreclose upon servicemembers’ homes; and (4) limitations upon the ability to terminate installment contracts or otherwise repossess personal property purchased via installment contract. 

Once favorably reported to the House, the bill gained thirty-nine (39) co-sponsors 

from both parties and was passed by the full House by 425–0. The Senate passed 

similar legislation with the leadership of Senator Lindsey Graham from my home 

State of South Carolina and the differences between the two bills were negotiated 

without need of a conference committee. On December 19, 2003, President George 

W. Bush signed into law the now-restyled ‘‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.’’ 

II. EXPERIENCES OF THE ROWLES PLAINTIFFS 

The litigation in which we are involved began only after Jonathan Rowles and his 

wife, Julia, endured several years of frustration regarding their home mortgage with 

Chase Home Finance, LLC. Our law firms filed this lawsuit on behalf of Captain 

Rowles in July of 2010. Over the past several months, we have been contacted by 

numerous military personnel who have experienced similar denials of SCRA protection from Chase’s subsidiaries. Last week, we filed an amended complaint, adding 

allegations on behalf of Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Letts-Smith of the United States 

Army Reserve and Lance Corporal Martin Hupfl of the United States Marine Corps. 

Our research has revealed systematic failures in the maintenance of SCRA protections pertaining to four classes of military men and women: (1) those denied the 6- 

percent maximum interest rate on debts incurred prior to military service; (2) those 

who received a blighted credit report as the result of their invocation of SCRA protection; (3) those whose homes were foreclosed upon despite SCRA protection; and 

(4) those possessing installment contracts that were cancelled or resulted in repossession of personal property such as automobiles despite SCRA protection. 

A review of the facts pertaining to each plaintiff is helpful in explaining how these 

violations came about. 

In February of 2004, Jonathan and Julia Rowles entered into a purchase money 

mortgage with BNC Mortgage, Inc. In May of 2004, Chase Manhattan Mortgage 

Corporation purchased this loan and, from that point in time, the Rowleses made 

all payments to Chase. After a year of making payments on this mortgage, Jonathan 

Rowles executed a United States Marine Corps Reserve contract on August 16, 2005 

and received Assignment to Active Duty Orders which became effective on January 

22, 2006. Shortly thereafter, Rowles requested in writing that Chase reduce the interest rate on the loan to 6 percent pursuant to the SCRA. In this letter, Rowles 

specified January 22, 2006 as the date he entered active duty and produced two sets 

of orders to verify his current status. Again on May 2, 2006, Rowles wrote to Chase 

to request the 6-percent rate protection under the SCRA. This letter also specified 

Rowles’ active duty date and included additional copies of his orders and a copy of 

his previous letter. 

On May 8, 2006, in response to this series of correspondence, Chase requested 

that Rowles provide ‘‘orders and/or an enlistment agreement showing the date of 

original call to duty.’’ Again Rowles sent faxes to Chase customer service representatives that included handwritten cover sheets explaining his active duty orders as 

well as copies of his letters of April 14 and May 2. In a letter dated July 27, 2006— 

7 months after Rowles received his active duty orders—Chase informed Rowles that 

because he had qualified for the protection of the SCRA, the company had adjusted 

the interest rate on the loan to 6 percent effective with his May 1, 2006 payment. 

However, Chase failed to apply the statutory interest rate to the loan until August 

17, 2006, which was the date of the first statement received by Rowles that reflected 

the 6-percent rate. The July 27 letter also informed Rowles that his ‘‘loan is protected against late fees, adverse credit reporting, and default activities. These protections will remain in effect for 90 days following your return from active duty.’’ 

Though Rowles’ SCRA protection had been in place for less than 4 months, Chase 

mailed Rowles a letter on December 1, 2007 which it characterized as a ‘‘required 

quarterly verification.’’ The letter included a form which Rowles was instructed to 

complete and sign in order to continue to receive the protection of the SCRA. Rowles 

duly completed the form and returned the letter to Chase. Chase sent additional 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

verification letters on December 17, 2008, March 25, June 22 and December 29 of 

2009 and March 22, 2010. In addition to the periodic verification letters, no fewer 

than four times per year since July of 2006, Rowles has had to call various Chase 

customer service representatives after being verbally informed or receiving documentation indicating that the interest rate on the loan was going to be adjusted 

above 6 percent if he failed to do so. In March of 2008, Rowles was forced to request 

that his commanding officer at Training Squadron Eighty-Six in Pensacola, Florida, 

write to Chase on his behalf in order to confirm that he was in fact an active duty 

Marine. 

In a letter dated January 16, 2007, Chase again informed Rowles that he had 

qualified for the protection of the SCRA and that the company had accordingly extended the adjustment on the 6-percent interest rate effective February 1, 2007. On 

April 2, 2008, Chase informed Rowles in writing that the company was ‘‘in receipt’’ 

of his ‘‘request for relief’’ under the SCRA and that he should allow 3 to 4 weeks 

for review of the request. A subsequent letter dated April 25, 2008, again informed 

him that his rate adjustment would be extended effective October 1, 2008. 

From the time that Chase applied the 6-percent interest rate to the loan until 

April 2009, Chase would send loan statements to the Rowles family indicating the 

interest rate charged on their loan was, in fact, substantially above 6 percent. On 

information and belief, during this time Chase would use various formulas and accounting methods to reconcile the higher stated interest rates while effectively only 

charging Rowles at 6 percent. 

Beginning in April 2009, the Rowleses’ loan was to shift from ‘‘interest only’’ to 

an amortized loan over remaining 25 years per the terms of the original agreement. 

On Rowles’ April 2009 statement and each subsequent statement, Chase not only 

failed to accurately characterize the interest rate on the loan as 6 percent but also 

ceased to employ any formula or accounting method to effectively provide Rowles 

with the benefit of the 6-percent protection under the SCRA. 

Each month between April 2009 and the time of the filing of the lawsuit, Rowles 

made a payment to Chase in the original contractual amount, which is the last correct amount billed by Chase reflecting interest at 6 percent. Despite this fact, Chase 

repeatedly failed to credit Rowles for payments made and began to pursue aggressive collection methods for what it characterized as a past-due balance on Rowles’ 

account. 

Chase’s collection methods during this time included repeated phone calls and correspondence to Rowles from Chase debt collection departments in various locations. 

These calls often came at a rate of three per day and included calls to his mother 

who lives at a different address and his workplace as well as calls made to his residence after midnight, and as late as 4:00 a.m. In telephone conversations, voicemails and correspondence during this time, Chase representatives repeatedly threatened to report Rowles to the credit bureaus and to initiate foreclosure proceedings 

on their house. 

This pattern of conduct by Chase caused Rowles to spend considerable time communicating with Chase via telephone, email and written correspondence. This time 

included leave from his unit which was spent traveling to meet with Chase representatives in an effort to preserve his 6-percent interest rate under the SCRA and 

to prevent Chase from taking threatened actions which are unlawful under the 

SCRA. Finally, in June of 2010, Chase denied Rowles electronic access to his account. Thereafter Rowles brought this suit. 

United States Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Letts-Smith 

Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Letts-Smith is an intelligence officer with the United 

States Army Reserve. On July 26, 2005, LTC Letts-Smith and her husband, Rory 

Smith, jointly purchased a house located in Temecula, California. At the time of the 

purchase, Lt. Col. Letts-Smith was not on active duty. The purchase was financed 

by Washington Mutual Bank, FA, popularly known as ‘‘WaMu.’’ For the first 3 

years, the Smiths made all mortgage payments on time for the 44200 Sunset Terrace home. 

On January 29, 2008, the Department of the Army ordered LTC Letts-Smith to 

active duty, instructing her to report to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for a training 

period of 120 days to be followed by deployment to Iraq. LTC Letts-Smith soon 

thereafter faxed letters to all of her creditors—including WaMu—informing them of 

her active duty status and requesting any and all protection afforded under the 

SCRA. 

During the summer of 2008—while LTC Letts-Smith was serving in Iraq—Rory 

Smith was laid off from his job, leaving his wife as the sole wage earner in the 

house. On August 5, 2008, Rory Smith sought assistance from WaMu in modifying 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

the Smith family’s mortgage so that payments could continue to be made. Smith informed WaMu in writing that he had been laid off from his job, that his wife was 

on active duty in Iraq, and that the family was having difficulty making their mortgage payments. 

On September 25, 2008, in the largest bank failure in American history, Washington Mutual Bank was closed by the Federal Government’s Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was named receiver. Regulators simultaneously brokered a deal selling nearly all of WaMu’s assets and liabilities to JPMorgan Chase. On October 11, 2008, WaMu—now owned by JPMorgan 

Chase—responded to Rory Smith’s earlier request for ‘‘Borrower Assistance’’ as follows. 

This letter is in response to your request for assistance on the above referenced loan. Washington Mutual received and reviewed documentation regarding a potential workout. Based on the financial information received, 

it does not appear we are able to offer you assistance at this time, therefore 

your request for a loan workout Modification has been denied. 

On the same date, WaMu and Chase informed the Smiths via a separate letter 

that their line of credit was suspended. In addition to this information, the WaMu/ 

Chase correspondence contained the following warning. 

WE MAY REPORT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ACCOUNT TO 

CREDIT BUREAUS. LATE PAYMENTS, MISSED PAYMENTS OR 

OTHER DEFAULTS ON YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE REFLECTED IN 

YOUR CREDIT REPORT. 

Several weeks later on December 1, 2008—and despite the fact that the bank was 

fully aware of Letts-Smith’s active duty status and request for assistance—WaMu/ 

Chase issued a ‘‘Notice of Collection Activity’’ to the Smiths. Contained in this notice 

was a threat of foreclosure. 

Failure to cure the default within the 30-day period may result in Washington Mutual Bank declaring the entire outstanding principal balance, accrued interest and any other fees and charges due under the terms of the 

Note and Security Instrument to be immediately due (‘‘Acceleration’’). If 

this amount is not immediately paid at such time, Washington Mutual 

Bank may exercise any and all remedies available under the terms of the 

Note and Security Instrument and applicable law, including the commencement of foreclosure proceedings which may result in the sale of your property. 

On March 26, 2009—with LTC Letts-Smith still stationed in Iraq—WaMu/Chase 

initiated foreclosure actions against the Smith family. Lt. Col. Letts-Smith was released from active duty on August 4, 2009. Three days later, on August 7, 2009, the 

foreclosure trustee sold the Smith family’s home for $934,150.00—approximately 

$800,000 less than the original purchase price of the home. 

United States Marine Corps Lance Corporal Martin Hupfl 

Martin Hupfl is currently a Lance Corporal in the United States Marine Corps 

stationed at NAS Jacksonville. In July of 2007, Hupfl—while still a civilian—purchased a 1999 Dodge Ram truck. LCpl Hupfl financed the purchase with 72 month 

installment loan from Defendant Chase Auto Finance Corp. The interest rate on the 

Chase loan was approximately 12 percent. 

In July of 2008, LCpl Hupfl enlisted in the Marine Corps. LCpl Hupfl recruiter 

informed him of the protections offered by the SCRA. With the recruiter’s assistance, LCpl Hupfl completed a SCRA Advice and Statement of Understanding that 

he signed and faxed to Defendant Chase Auto Finance Corp. 

LCpl Hupfl entered boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina on July 21, 2008. 

From boot camp Hupfl was transferred to Camp Lejeune, NC for further entry level 

training. During this period of training, LCpl Hupfl’s mother received a letter from 

Defendant Chase Auto Finance dated December 11, 2008 stating that Chase had finally ‘‘processed’’ his SCRA request and that Chase had ‘‘reduced the interest rate 

to 6 percent and discontinued all fee accruals from the date of your military orders.’’ 

LCpl Hupfl completed his entry level training on March 5, 2009 and, from there, 

was assigned to his first duty station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hupfl telephoned Chase Auto Finance to resume his loan payments at the original contracted 

amount. However, Hupfl was advised by Chase Auto Finance that it had terminated 

the installment loan contract in December of 2008 and therefore was unable to accept any payments from him. Soon thereafter, Chase Auto Finance assigned LCpl 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

Hupfl’s account to a collection agency that began sending him collection letters and 

making collection calls to his mother’s house. Chase Auto Finance also reported to 

various credit bureaus that Hupfl’s account had been ‘‘charged off as bad debt.’’ 

III. Practical Effects of the Failure to Recognize SCRA Protections 

The immediate effect of SCRA violations on our military men and women are obvious. Unlawful foreclosures force families from their homes. Illegal repossessions 

strip families of their cars, appliances, and other essential household items. Derogatory reports to credit agencies damage the ability of our soldiers and sailors to enter 

into future financial agreement. Excessive charges of interest demand monies which 

are not owed. 

Perhaps more damaging than these immediate effects, however, is the financial 

stress endured by military families while their loved ones serve on active duty. As 

the stories of Captain Rowles and LTC Letts-Smith show, the spouses, parents, and 

children of our military men and women are those that inevitably bear the brunt 

of SCRA violations. While her husband was deployed to Korea, Julia Rowles was 

forced to negotiate with Chase representatives while caring for a small child and 

pregnant with another. While his wife was surviving the Iraqi war zone, Rory Smith 

prepared his children to move from their home as foreclosure crept closer. 

I began this written testimony by referring to the stated policy of the SCRA: ‘‘to 

enable [servicemembers] to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the 

Nation.’’ Violations such as those suffered by our clients directly defeat this purpose. 

While on active duty, our soldiers have limited time to so much as contact their families. Sadly, according to public statements made by JPMorgan Chase to the press, 

it appears that over the past few years several thousand men and women like Captain Rowles, like LTC Letts-Smith, and like LCpl Hupfl were forced to spend what 

personal time they did have on the phone with banking officials seeking an explanation why their families were being overcharged interest, why their car was being 

repossessed, or why their home was being foreclosed. 

IV. Suggestions for More Diligent Enforcement of SCRA 

The systematic failure of SCRA protections in the Rowles litigation is evidence 

that the enforcement provisions of the SCRA deserve reconsideration. In our review 

of the law and its application over the last 6 months, we believe that there are three 

areas Congress may improve to strengthen the SCRA in hopes of preventing such 

failures in the future. 

a. Criminal Penalties for Violations of the SCRA 

Criminal indictment is the ultimate sanction provided by the SCRA. Yet such 

punishment is extraordinarily rare as it carries the burden of proving one ‘‘knowingly’’ inflicted upon servicemembers the hardships prohibited by the SCRA. But 

even if such proof exists, the potential criminal penalties available, for example for 

intentionally foreclosing upon the home of a soldier serving in Afghanistan, are very 

limited. Of the sections directly pertaining to the Rowles litigation, three prescribe 

misdemeanor criminal penalties for ‘‘knowing’’ violations (Sections 527 (violation of 

interest cap), 532 (termination of installment loans and/or repossession), and 533 

(foreclosure of mortgages)) and the fourth contains no criminal penalty whatsoever 

(Section 518 (unlawful report to credit agencies)). 

Even without considering the difficulties of proving a ‘‘knowing’’ violation of the 

SCRA, the realities of criminal sentencing render the potential of a prison term for 

a misdemeanor ‘‘white collar’’ criminal offense almost nonexistent. In response, Congress should consider stiffening maximum sentences for SCRA violations beyond the 

current 1-year cap. Doing so will provide the dreaded ‘‘felony’’ label to violations as 

well as raise the specter of a potential for incarceration for egregious examples of 

SCRA breaches. 

b. Imposition of Civil Fines for Violations of the SCRA 

None of the SCRA provisions pertaining to interest rates, mortgages, or installment loans contemplate civil fines as a deterrent to SCRA violations. Fines are only 

contemplated in terms of a criminal violation, and thus the government must demonstrate a ‘‘knowing’’ violation of the SCRA in order for any monetary penalty to 

attach. Congress should consider the imposition of civil fines for any violation of the 

SCRA—regardless of the existence of preexisting knowledge or intent. 

In order to encourage compliance with the SCRA and discourage additional civil 

and criminal litigation, Congress should consider offering a discounted fine to SCRA 

violators that self-report breaches of the law. A 50 percent reduction in civil penalties owed for each violation of the SCRA will provide ample incentive to lenders 

to monitor their business practices, rapidly correct any breaches, and promptly remedy any damage inflicted upon servicemembers. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

c. Provision Providing for Attorneys’ Fees in Conjunction with Civil Relief 

In addition to the provision of civil fines, Congress should consider providing for 

the statutory right of recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees by servicemembers from 

SCRA violators. Due to the nature of SCRA protections, oftentimes damages suffered by servicemembers will be relatively small. If a servicemember were to retain 

the services of an attorney to attempt to enforce his SCRA rights, a typical attorney’s contingency fee would decimate an already modest recovery by one-third or 

more—assuming that that servicemember could retain an attorney willing to invest 

in such a modest potential gain. Likewise, an attorney’s hourly billable rate may 

exhaust a servicemember’s recovery all together. 

In contrast, the statutory provision for a recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees 

will enable servicemembers to seek counsel for the protection of their SCRA rights 

while vesting in the Federal judiciary the power to ensure that the servicemembers’ 

attorneys are fairly compensated while prohibiting windfall fee awards. A successful 

example of such a statutory fee scheme may be found in civil rights litigation, more 

specifically that related to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Recognizing that a successful suit over 

a violation of civil rights may produce little or no financial reward, Congress enacted 

the accompanying authority of 42 U.S.C. 1988 that provides for ‘‘reasonable attorneys’ fees’’ to be awarded to a successful plaintiff by the defendant adjudged liable 

for the violation. This statute has enabled victims of civil rights violations to have 

access to the civil justice system and civil counsel while preventing the award of 

excessive fees. 

CONCLUSION 

I would again like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf 

of our clients and on behalf of the thousands of servicemen and servicewomen who 

have fallen victim to SCRA violations in the last several years. As the SCRA recognizes, its protections are essential to our national defense. It is my hope that Congress will take all steps necessary to ensure the continued vitality of this law. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Stephanie B. Mudick, Executive Vice President, 

Office of Consumer Practices, JPMorgan Chase & Co., New York, NY 

Executive Summary 

Chase has discovered mistakes in our compliance with the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (SCRA), and we are committed to fixing them. We deeply regret that 

servicemembers have been overcharged and in some cases faced foreclosure because 

of these errors. We are acting to make these customers whole as soon as possible 

and enhancing our safeguards to prevent such mistakes going forward. Chase is determined to get this right. 

Chase has identified two problems: First, based on our review to date, some 4,500 

servicemembers were charged interest rates and fees above SCRA’s 6-percent cap. 

We have begun paying back those overcharges. Second, to date, we have found 18 

cases where servicemembers were improperly foreclosed upon. For 12 of these borrowers, we have rescinded the sale or reached a settlement, and we will work to 

resolve the other cases. 

Our review is on-going and these numbers could change. SCRA also applies to 

other types of consumer loans, and we are actively reviewing all our businesses to 

ensure they comply with the SCRA. 

Weaknesses in Chase’s SCRA Compliance. Our ongoing review of SCRA compliance has identified several operational problems that led to mishandling of SCRA 

loans. In some cases, Chase employees misinterpreted military orders and the 

length of time servicemembers were on active duty, affecting fees and interest rate 

charges. In other cases, errors on our part resulted in some loans not being identified as SCRA-protected, which resulted in overcharges, and in some cases, improper 

foreclosures. 

Enhancements to Our Processes to Prevent Further Problems. Chase has 

made significant enhancements to our SCRA compliance protocols. We have centralized SCRA loan set-up in a single unit in Florence, South Carolina, where employees get special training in interpreting military orders and key decisions are reviewed by managers or other employees. Chase now checks SCRA loans daily to 

verify that the law’s protections remain in place on Chase’s system. We have added 

new controls to prevent foreclosures on borrowers covered by the SCRA. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

Military Initiatives. Chase is expanding our outreach to customers who may be 

in the military, advising them of SCRA’s protections. This outreach will be automatic when a customer has a military address. We have set up a new customer 

service hotline for servicemembers, staffed by 30 Chase employees in Monroe, Louisiana. We are providing SCRA training to 2 employees in each of our 51 existing 

Chase Homeownership Centers created to help borrowers struggling with their 

mortgages. By this summer, these centers will be in 27 States and the District of 

Columbia. 

Chase deeply regrets our errors in SCRA compliance. We are committed to correcting them, and making changes that will prevent such problems in the future. 

Introduction 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to appear before you today. My name is Stephanie Mudick, and 

I am the Head of Consumer Practices at JPMorgan Chase & Co. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss errors that Chase discovered in 

its compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), the steps Chase 

is taking to compensate servicemembers mistakenly overcharged or improperly foreclosed upon as a result of those errors, and the enhancements that Chase has implemented in its controls related to SCRA compliance going forward. I will also discuss 

several new initiatives that Chase is implementing to ensure that Chase customers 

who are servicemembers have reliable information about their rights and receive the 

very best customer service we can provide. 

Before I go further, I’d like to acknowledge to you that we clearly made mistakes 

here, and that we are working very hard on fixing them. 

The SCRA provides vitally important financial protections to the men and women 

of our armed forces during active duty—a period of personal sacrifice for themselves 

and their families. I want to express to the men and women serving our country 

and to the Members of this Committee Chase’s deepest regret over the mistakes we 

made in applying those protections. I also commit to you that Chase is determined 

to get this right. My focus today will be on mistakes in our mortgage business, 

where we first became aware of these issues. We are also reviewing all of our lines 

of business that are subject to the SCRA to ensure that they are in compliance. And 

if and wherever we find a mistake, we will fix it. 

SCRA Compliance Errors 

We have identified two problems in our home lending business with respect to certain mortgages, including home equity loans, held by servicemembers who are eligible for SCRA protection. 

First, under the SCRA, servicemembers who are on active duty and who took out 

a mortgage loan prior to the start of that duty are entitled to have the interest rate 

and fees on their mortgages capped at 6-percent interest for the period of their active duty, and 12 months afterward, by providing the lender with the orders calling 

them to active duty. In many instances, Chase charged SCRA-eligible borrowers 

who had provided Chase with their active duty orders interest and fees that raised 

their effective interest rate above the 6-percent cap for at least some part of the 

SCRA-covered period. We are in the process of calculating the refunds and credits 

for any interest that we charged SCRA-eligible borrowers above 6 percent, as well 

as fees (which do not include tax and insurance payments) charged to SCRA-eligible 

borrowers. To date, the amount we have identified equals approximately $1.8 million. We have added to the refunds 7.25 percent interest from the date of the overcharge, which comes to approximately $600,000, for a total of approximately $2.4 

million. The total number of affected servicemembers we have identified is approximately 4,500, and the median payment is approximately $70, plus interest. We already sending an initial batch of checks to some of these servicemembers this week 

and intend to send additional checks over the coming weeks as we finalize and double-check the amounts they are due. 

Second, the SCRA protects a servicemember from foreclosure judgment or sale 

while the servicemember is on active duty and, since SCRA was amended by the 

Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, that protection is extended 

for the 9 months after completing active duty. We are scrutinizing our files closely 

and to date we are aware of 18 servicemembers who were on active duty or otherwise within the SCRA/HERA protection period at the time of foreclosure sale. In 12 

of these cases, we have either rescinded the sale or entered into a settlement with 

the borrower. We will attempt to make the remaining borrowers whole as quickly 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

as possible. We are continuing to review our files to make sure that we have identified all borrowers affected by these issues. If we find problems involving additional 

servicemembers protected by the SCRA, we will fix them. 

Weaknesses in Chase’s SCRA Compliance 

We routinely review all of our businesses for compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations, including the SCRA. As part of that process, we became aware of weaknesses in our SCRA compliance. 

We have identified several operational problems that caused us to mishandle 

SCRA loans. Chase’s handling of military loans involved significant manual processing and complexity, which led to (i) human errors, including in the review and 

interpretation of military orders, the identification of the protected period from 

those orders, and the interest rate and fee calculations; and (ii) errors relating to 

the coding of these servicemember loans on our system, which resulted in certain 

loans not being properly identified as SCRA-eligible. For example, in certain instances, we misinterpreted the military orders, recording the protection period on 

the servicing system as commencing 2 weeks after the actual active duty date, leading to an interest rate overcharge for several weeks. In other instances, the coding 

on the system did not identify the account as SCRA-protected, leading to a longer 

period of overcharges and fees and, in some instances, to an improper foreclosure. 

We did not check the Web site maintained by the United States Department of Defense, called the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Web site, with sufficient 

frequency or consistency. 

We understand that Mr. Harpootlian, the lawyer for Captain Rowles and his family, accompanied by the Rowleses, will testify before this Committee about the family’s dealings with Chase in connection with their mortgage. We have reviewed the 

history of their account, and we clearly made mistakes in how we serviced their 

mortgage and how we dealt with them in trying to resolve those mistakes. The customer service that we provided to Captain Rowles and his wife was unacceptable, 

and the fact that this was a servicemember makes our mistakes all the more inexcusable. We deeply regret any hardship or distress we caused the Rowles family. 

We’ve communicated to Captain Rowles through his attorney our commitment to resolve this matter and our genuine desire to make him and his family whole as 

quickly as possible. 

Enhancements to Our Process to Prevent a Recurrence 

Recognizing the causes of the errors in SCRA-eligible accounts, Chase now has 

made significant enhancements to its processes to ensure that loans are properly 

categorized on the servicing system as SCRA-eligible loans, that SCRA protection 

periods are properly identified, that interest and fees are calculated correctly, and 

that several verifications are done and documented prior to any foreclosure sale to 

confirm that borrowers are not SCRA-eligible. 

• Enhanced Controls on SCRA Setup and Protection Period Determinations. We have centralized SCRA loan set-up in a single unit located in Florence, South Carolina. The members of this group receive enhanced training on 

interpreting military orders, and every single determination of the protected period under military orders is subject to quality control by another employee. In 

addition, any determination by a member of this group that a borrower is not 

eligible for SCRA protection requires manager review and sign-off. 

• Enhanced Controls on SCRA-Eligible Loans. Chase has instituted a daily 

review and reconciliation of the entire list of SCRA-protected loans to ensure 

that the SCRA codes blocking foreclosure of those loans remain in place, and 

a periodic review to ensure that the aggregate interest and fees on these loans 

are capped at 6 percent. 

• Enhanced Controls on Interest Rate Calculation. The calculation of the 6- 

percent interest rate cap now is subject to 100 percent quality control review 

by another employee every billing cycle. 

• Enhanced Controls on Foreclosure Referrals and Sales. Chase has implemented enhanced controls on foreclosure referrals and sales through repeated 

checks on military status at different points in the process. First, before any 

loan is referred for foreclosure, an Independent Foreclosure Review team reviews each loan for military status by checking Chase’s own system and the 

DMDC Web site. Second, before the first legal filing to start a foreclosure, 

Chase policy requires its local foreclosure counsel to check the DMDC Web site 

and then upload evidence of that check onto Chase’s servicing system. Third, 

2 to 3 weeks before foreclosure sale, the Independent Foreclosure Review team 

again reviews the servicing system for military coding and checks the DMDC 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

1http://www.militaryonesource.com/MOS/FindInformation/Category/Topic/Issue/Material.aspx? 

MaterialID=15924&MaterialTypeID=9. 

Web site. Finally, 96 hours before a foreclosure sale, a Pre-Sale Review team 

reviews the loan again for military status. 

To summarize, today when a servicemember calls to tell us he or she is going on 

active duty, a special unit of Chase reviews the military orders and codes the account to reflect the start date for SCRA coverage. Once the system is coded, the account is capped at 6-percent interest and fees until 1 year following the end of the 

active duty period. We have created a hotline—staffed by employees who have received training on SCRA—to handle borrower questions. And Chase or its outside 

counsel checks the DMDC Web site at least three times before moving to a foreclosure sale. 

We are committed to addressing effectively the issues that we found with our 

SCRA compliance. Therefore, the current processes are being reviewed by Chase Internal Audit and by Chase’s Operational Risk unit, with the assistance of outside 

advisors, to ensure that they are effective in identifying SCRA-eligible servicemembers and ensuring that these servicemembers receive the protections provided 

under the SCRA. 

Student Loans 

We would like to explain our deferral policy with regard to student loans. Several 

years ago, we began deferring all student loan payments for active duty servicemembers, in addition to lowering the interest rate and fees to 6 percent. This policy 

went beyond the requirements of SCRA. However, as part of a broader review of 

our forbearance policies in our student lending business, last December we stopped 

offering deferments for new participants. When some servicemembers expressed 

concern, we decided to reinstitute the deferment option and offer them a choice: continue paying at 6 percent, or defer the payments. 

Military Initiatives 

In addition to these enhancements to our controls, we also are taking certain 

other proactive steps to better support our servicemember customers. 

First, we are enhancing our communications with military personnel about their 

SCRA rights. Chase already has a specific Web page dedicated to military personnel 

(www.chasemilitary.com), and we plan to provide a prominent link to a Web site 

recommended by the Department of Defense (DoD). 1 We will also send a letter to 

borrowers whom we believe may be military personnel based on information that 

comes to our attention. Our letter will alert them to the existence of SCRA protections and direct them to the DoD-recommended Web site for further information. 

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the government to provide additional information to servicemembers about their rights. 

Second, to improve our ability to identify military personnel to whom such a letter 

should be sent, we are following the suggestion of Holly Petraeus, the newly appointed Team Lead of the Office of Servicemember Affairs of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Implementation Team, that we identify servicemembers by 

setting up a process for identifying when a borrower has changed his or her home 

address from a standard street address to an APO or FPO. When we are alerted 

to such a change of address, we will reach out to the servicemember to alert them 

to the existence of SCRA protections. 

Third, we also believe it is critical to ensure that our servicemember customers 

have access to customer service representatives who understand their unique issues 

and can provide top quality service. Therefore, we have created a hotline (877–469– 

0110) that is staffed by approximately 30 Chase employees based in Monroe, Louisiana who are trained on SCRA coverage. These customer service personnel also 

will be able to liaise directly with Chase personnel involved in the system setup of 

SCRA protection periods to ensure that any issues with those protection periods are 

quickly resolved. 

We are also training two people in each of our existing 51 Chase Homeownership 

Centers (CHOCs) in SCRA matters so that servicemembers and their families can 

have local access when they would like to speak to a Chase representative face to 

face. Chase Homeownership Centers are local offices devoted exclusively to serving 

families struggling with their Chase mortgages, and CHOC counselors will help customers understand the full range of options available that could allow them to stay 

in their homes. We recently announced we will soon open an additional 25 CHOCs. 

This expansion will bring Chase Homeownership Centers to a total of 27 States and 

the District of Columbia, reaching the vast majority of borrowers with Chase mortgages. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

In closing, I would like once again to express Chase’s deepest regret to Captain 

Rowles and his fellow servicemembers for our errors in SCRA compliance. I hope 

that my testimony has made clear that we are committed to correcting past mistakes and that we will continue to improve processes and controls to ensure that 

we are in full compliance with the SCRA. 

I would be happy to answer questions from the Committee. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hollister K. Petraeus, Team Lead, 

Office of Servicemember Affairs, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Implementation Team, U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Chairman Miller, Representative Filner, and distinguished Members of the Committee: thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB) Implementation Team’s work to establish the Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA). First of all, I’d like to thank this Committee for its continuing efforts 

to protect servicemembers, veterans, and their families from predatory financial 

practices. As many of you know, I’ve been a member of the military community my 

entire life, and I feel that it’s very important that our military has strong advocates 

working on its behalf. And it’s my intent that the Office of Servicemember Affairs 

be one of those strong advocates, educating and looking out for military personnel 

and their families. 

First, I’d like to tell you a bit about my background, especially my work on military financial education issues during the last 6 years. Next, I’ll provide some background on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA). Finally, I’ll touch on the alleged violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) that are the subject of today’s hearing. 

My Background 

I come from a military family, one that has a tradition of service going back to 

the Revolutionary War. My father served in the Army for over 36 years, fighting 

in both World War II and Vietnam. Two of my brothers also served in Vietnam, and, 

of course, my husband is currently serving. And I’m a military mom, as well. The 

military is in many ways a separate community in our Nation, and it’s one that I 

have the privilege to know very well. 

The last time I testified before Congress was over 6 years ago, when I spoke about 

deployment-related issues at a joint hearing of two Senate Subcommittees: The Subcommittee on Children and Families from the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor & Pensions, and the Subcommittee on Personnel from the Committee on 

Armed Services. At that time, my husband had just begun the second of three deployments to Iraq and I was a longtime volunteer in the military community. As 

a volunteer, I had the opportunity to serve as a senior Family Readiness Group advisor during deployment and to work with local, State and national legislators on 

issues affecting Army families. Five months after that testimony, I became the Director of BBB Military Line, a program of the Council of Better Business Bureaus 

(BBB) providing consumer education and advocacy for servicemembers and their 

families—a position that I held for 6 years. In that role, I oversaw a national program that worked with the Department of Defense (DoD) as a partner in the DoD 

Financial Readiness Campaign and fostered outreach from the 120 local Better 

Business Bureaus to military communities across the United States. 

While with the BBB, I made on-site visits to many military installations, learning 

about the consumer issues that impacted them, giving presentations on consumer 

scams, and working to establish local BBB-military relationships. I guided development of teen and adult financial education curricula taught to over 10,000 individuals in military communities around the United States, and wrote a monthly consumer newsletter addressing issues of interest to the military. 

Last fall, I was one of a number of people who offered advice to Professor Warren 

when she first began her task of setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And when she offered me the opportunity to be in on the ground floor of building the Office of Servicemember Affairs, I couldn’t resist this new opportunity to 

serve as an advocate for military personnel and their families. 

Functions and Structure of the CFPB 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank 

Act) which was signed into law on July 21, 2010, established the CFPB as an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve System and charged it with ensuring 

that consumers have the information they need to make financial decisions that are 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

best for them and their families. The CFPB will work to promote fairness, transparency, and competition in the markets for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services. The CFPB will set—and enforce—clear, consistent rules that allow banks and other consumer financial service providers to 

compete on a level playing field and that allow consumers to see clearly the costs 

and features of financial products and services. 

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Secretary of the Treasury has responsibility for 

standing up the CFPB until a Director of the CFPB is in place. In September, the 

Secretary asked Elizabeth Warren to serve as a Special Advisor leading the effort 

to stand up the CFPB. The CFPB implementation team, currently housed within 

the Treasury Department, is hard at work putting in place the building blocks for 

the CFPB. 

The CFPB Implementation Team is divided into several teams that are standing 

up the various functions of the CFPB, including: Bank Supervision, Nonbank Supervision, Enforcement, Financial Education, Rulemaking, Consumer Response, Fair 

Lending, Research and Markets, etc. On July 21st of this year, many consumer financial protection functions that are currently with other agencies will transfer to 

the CFPB—I have to point out, however, that responsibilities relating to the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the focus of this hearing, will remain with the prudential regulators and the Justice Department. Eventually, the CFPB will grow into 

a fully operational financial regulator and supervisor, and it will be the primary 

place where members of the public—including servicemembers—can come with 

questions and complaints about consumer financial products and services. 

Functions and Structure of the Office of Servicemember Affairs 

Professor Warren asked me to join the implementation team at the end of last 

year. I started a little less than a month ago, and we are hard at work building 

the Office of Servicemember Affairs. 

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the OSA to work in partnership with the Pentagon to see that military personnel and their families receive strong financial education, to monitor their complaints about consumer financial products and services—and responses to those complaints—and to coordinate efforts by Federal and 

State agencies to improve consumer financial protection measures for military families. We are authorized to enter into agreements with the Department of Defense 

to carry out OSA’s work and to make sure that we achieve those goals. 

Within the CFPB, our job is to make sure that every division of the CFPB understands the unique military community and the financial issues that impact it. I plan 

to work with our examiners to ensure they are current on military-specific issues, 

to encourage our enforcement team to take action against financial providers who 

break the law to harm servicemembers and to work with the consumer response 

unit to be sure that it is attuned to the military community and responsive to its 

concerns. We also plan to work closely with the consumer financial education team 

at the CFPB. History has shown us that best practices developed in support of the 

military can translate to the larger U.S. community—and that the military can be 

a great test bed for innovative financial education products that could have an application to the population at large. 

According to our current draft organizational chart, the Office of Servicemember 

Affairs will eventually fit under the Associate Director for Education and Engagement, along with financial education and other offices that focus on particular segments of the population. Although education and engagement will be our primary 

responsibilities, our reach will go beyond our box on the organization chart; the goal 

is for the OSA to work closely with all parts of the CFPB to make sure that they 

keep the needs of the military community in mind in all of their work. 

Outreach Activities 

Right now we are focused on planning and scheduling visits to military bases and 

other meetings that will help us identify the problems and determine where we can 

make the biggest difference. I have already met with senior DoD officials, including 

Robert Gordon, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community 

and Family Policy. It’s clear to me that the people at the Pentagon are very supportive of our mission, and we are working closely with them to plan our future activities. In addition, I have met with senior staff from the Department of Justice’s 

Civil Rights Division, headed by Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. The Justice 

Department is also supportive of our mission and eager to work with the CFPB to 

protect the rights of servicemembers. I was pleased to hear about the scope of DOJ’s 

enforcement activities on behalf of servicemembers, which includes authorized lawsuits against 3 nationwide lenders and several active investigations involving both 

foreclosures issues and failure to lower the interest rate to 6 percent. We are planVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

ning to coordinate closely with DOJ in light of its enforcement responsibilities under 

the SCRA. 

This past Tuesday, I sent a letter to the chief executive officers of the 25 largest 

banks that provide mortgage servicing. This was prompted by the recent news reports alleging that major financial institutions had violated the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act, which provides financial protections for our military. I urged the 

chief executive officers to take steps to ensure that their institutions are in compliance with the law. 

Military Outreach 

We’ve already started a conversation with the military community. Professor Warren and I have been to Joint Base San Antonio, where we had two roundtable discussions. The first was with military service providers, including lawyers, financial 

counselors, mental health professionals and chaplains, as well as the base’s leadership. We asked questions about what scams and other financial problems these service providers were seeing, and how they thought those financial problems might be 

dealt with. The second roundtable was with military personnel and spouses from the 

Air Force, Army and Navy. They felt strongly about the need for mandatory financial training, not just in basic training, but on a continuing basis. The military 

spouses in the room also brought up the challenges of deployment for dual-career 

couples, and the difficulties and temporary loss of income when moving a spouse’s 

civilian career job, as well as the basic financial strains of frequent moves. I could 

certainly relate to that, as I have moved 23 times in 36 years of marriage! We plan 

to do more roundtables, and have a tentative travel schedule mapped out through 

the spring that includes about one base visit per month. 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

Protecting our servicemembers from suffering devastating financial repercussions 

for answering the call to service is not only the right thing to do—it is also important to our National security. Military personnel who are distracted by financial 

problems cannot do their jobs to the best of their abilities. In fact, hundreds of people in the military have their essential security clearances revoked each year due 

to financial problems, which then means they can’t do the job they were trained for. 

A recent Department of Defense survey found that servicemembers consider their 

finances to be the second largest source of stress in their lives, behind career concerns but ahead of deployments, health, family, and war. 

The SCRA provides important safeguards for our military families who do so 

much for our country. It protects military personnel who are called to active duty 

by lowering the interest rate to 6 percent on certain debts incurred before entering 

active duty, including mortgage and credit card loans. Additionally, the SCRA provides certain protections from foreclosure for the home of a servicemember on active 

duty. 

In light of the importance of protecting our servicemembers, I was dismayed to 

learn about the recent allegations of mortgage-related violations of SCRA. I hope 

that the recent attention to this issue will cause all lenders to take steps to educate 

their employees about the financial protections that the SCRA provides and to take 

appropriate proactive steps to ensure compliance. This law was put in place to enable our soldiers to focus on their jobs, and it’s important that it be adhered to. 

Servicemembers should not have to struggle to get the provisions that are due to 

them under law. A National Guard wife once told me that her husband had been 

activated three times, and each time she had had to fight with their bank for 

months to get the SCRA applied. 

As you know, a foreclosure is devastating for any American family to experience, 

but it can be especially painful for military families. Both the family back home and 

the servicemember abroad, who feels helpless to take action to prevent the foreclosure, are put in a terrible situation. That’s why it is so important that servicemembers receive all the protections afforded to them under the SCRA. Again, I 

would hope that the recent problems will be a wake-up call for all banks and other 

financial companies to be especially careful to comply with the SCRA. 

Conclusion 

Last month, I attended the White House announcement of the ‘‘Strengthening 

Our Military Families’’ initiative. The President, First Lady and Dr. Biden all spoke 

at that event, affirming their commitment to military families, and almost the entire cabinet was in attendance as well. There is currently a very positive feeling in 

this country toward the service and sacrifice of military families, and a desire to 

support them. One way to help is to enforce the laws that are already on the books 

to protect them, and to hold to account those who ignore them. Another is to write 

new rules when needed. It’s also important to educate the military about their fiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

1Section 303 of the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010, Public Law 111–275, October 13, 2010, 

amended the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 USC App. § 501 et seq) by adding at the end 

new title VIII, Civil Liability. This title contains new sections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act: 801, Enforcement by the Attorney General; 802, Private Right of Action, and 803, Preservation Of Remedies. These have been codified as sections 50 USC App §§ 597, 597a and 597b. 2 Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, et al, 2008 WL 4539478 (W. D. Mich., 9/30/ 

2008, Case No. 1:08–cv–361), vacated by 2009 WL 701006 (W.D. Mich. 3/13/2009). 3http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/business/27foreclose.html?scp=1&sq=John+Odom&st=nyt 

nancial protections and about best financial practices. That will all be a big part 

of the mission of the CFPB and the Office of Servicemember Affairs. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Colonel Shawn Shumake (USA), Director, 

Office of Legal Policy, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense 

Chairman Miller and Members of the Committee, thank you for extending the invitation to the Department of Defense to comment on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and explain how we educate our servicemembers, their families, and 

private industry about it. The Department recognizes the fundamental importance 

of the SCRA. No other statute provides the breadth of benefits and protections for 

servicemembers as are found in the SCRA. It protects those who have dropped their 

own affairs and taken up those of the Nation. 

Purpose and Importance of the SCRA 

The purpose of the SCRA is no less lofty than to provide servicemembers’ peace 

of mind, knowing that while they put their lives at risk to protect this great Nation, 

their personal affairs and economic interests will be protected. They and their families will be relieved from many of the day-to-day strains and pressures that the rest 

of us are more easily able to handle. 

The SCRA’s protections are broad and diverse. It protects servicemembers from 

evictions, default judgments, and foreclosure. It allows them to delay judicial proceedings and to cap their interest rates. It provides them and their spouses certain 

tax relief. It does more for our servicemembers than any other single law by shifting—at least temporarily—some of the burdens associated with military service 

from the servicemember to others more capable of bearing those burdens. 

Congressional Efforts to Strengthen Enforcement of the SCRA 

Congress continues to play the most critical role in protecting our servicemembers 

and their families. To ensure that the SCRA could be aggressively enforced by those 

it is designed to protect, the 111th Congress passed the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 

2010.1 This law could have the most broad-reaching effect of any single change to 

the SCRA since the overhaul and update of the SCRA in 2003. The Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010 clarified that servicemembers and others that it protects could seek 

civil enforcement through the courts and receive monetary damages and attorneys’ 

fees. It also clarified that the Attorney General has similar enforcement authority 

on behalf of servicemembers and other aggrieved persons. 

Although many courts had found that such a private right of action was implied, 

others have resisted this interpretation, leading to the almost unconscionable conclusion that servicemembers had benefits and protections that could not be enforced. 

In Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas,2 which recently received front page 

coverage on the New York Times,3 the court initially ruled that a Michigan National 

Guardsman whose home was illegally foreclosed on and sold to a third party while 

the Guardsman was deployed to Afghanistan, had no legal remedy. Only through 

expert legal counterattacks by the servicemember’s attorneys was the court persuaded to reverse its position—but only after adding 6 months to the already protracted litigation. Just the danger of such daunting impediments to the enforcement 

of smaller claims could leave servicemembers wronged, and without remedy. The 

Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010 ended such worries. 

Substantive Changes to the SCRA 

Congress has for the last several years recognized the burdens that military service places on servicemembers through a number of substantive changes to the SCRA 

designed to relieve some of the burdens associated with military service. 

The 110th Congress recognized these burdens and amended the SCRA in 2008 to 

extend the 6-percent interest rate cap for pre-service mortgage obligations. This interest rate cap, which had been in effect for decades, had previously only applied 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

4P.L. 110–289, The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, § 2203(b). 5P.L. 110–289, The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, § Section 2203(a). 6P.L. 111–22, Title VII, the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, §§ 701–704. 

for actual periods of active duty. This amendment extended the interest rate cap for 

pre-service mortgage obligations for an additional year after leaving active duty.4

At the same time, Congress also temporarily amended the SCRA to extend protections from foreclosure on pre-service mortgage obligations from 90 days to 9 months 

after the servicemember leaves active duty. Under these conditions and during this 

time, no servicemember can be foreclosed on absent a court order.5 This extension 

to 9 months would have reverted by law to the previous 90 days on January 1, 2011. 

In one of its last acts, the 111th Congress extended this sunset provision for 2 years. 

Additional Statutory Protections Addressing the Burdens of Service 

In February 2009, the 111th Congress provided $555 million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to expand the pre-existing Homeowner’s Assistance 

Program (HAP) benefits to address unique economic pressures faced by military personnel who are required to relocate during adverse housing market conditions. Congress added another $300 million for HAP in 2010. 

HAP seeks to minimize the amount of financial harm—including risk of foreclosure, credit damage, or bankruptcy—that servicemember and civilian beneficiaries may experience when they are compelled to relocate under military orders. 

As of January 27, 2011, HAP has assisted 4,483 homeowners at a program cost of 

$674 million. Another 4,643 homeowners are currently being evaluated for eligibility. 

On May 20, 2009, the 111th Congress recognized that because most servicemembers are not homeowners, but rather are renters, they faced particular difficulties when their landlords were foreclosed on. The Helping Families Save Their 

Homes Act of 2009,6 provides significant protections when such servicemembers face 

possible displacement. Although the above two statutes do not directly amend the 

SCRA, they recognize that servicemembers face challenges with their housing that 

puts them at greater risk than the rest of the country. 

The Education Process 

These amendments to the SCRA and the other powerful statutory provisions discussed above, show Congress clearly recognizes the difficulties of military service. 

Of course, the protections and benefits from these and other laws mean little if our 

servicemembers do not know about them. 

The Service secretaries are directed to ensure that their Members know about the 

benefits and protections of the SCRA and of other similar laws. This educational 

process involves coordinated and overlapping efforts to alert the servicemembers 

and their commanders of these benefits and protections and then to ensure that the 

proper counselors are there to help the servicemember fully understand the nuances 

of the laws and receive everything the laws promise their full benefits and protections. The Department has worked closely with the Department of Justice, which 

has enforcement authority under the SCRA. Together DoD and DOJ have trained 

attorneys in the military legal assistance program so they are well prepared to answer servicemembers’ questions and identify potential violations of the SCRA. The 

military legal assistance program provides the first line of defense for our servicemembers; however, if they are unable to resolve the matter, the servicemember may 

be referred to private counsel or seek representation through any number of State 

and local pro bono programs. The DoJ has also intervened on behalf of servicemembers when necessary to protect servicemember’s rights and interests. 

The Department’s efforts to educate servicemembers and their families center 

around the installation and the various reserve component mobilization and demobilization processing centers. These reserve component processing centers are particularly critical because two of the most important economic protections and benefits— 

the 6-percent interest rate cap and the extension of foreclosure protections—only 

apply to pre-service obligations. Accordingly, those most likely to benefit from these 

protections are Reservists and National Guardsmen called to active duty. 

Because each of the Services has the authority to best determine how to provide 

the necessary training and counseling, the Department has asked the Services to 

set out how they educate their members about the SCRA. The timing of the Committee’s request did not allow time to gather the data and then organize it to show 

the many ways the information is presented to the servicemember; therefore, that 

information will be submitted separately to the Committee as soon as possible. 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Statement of Colonel John S. Odom, Jr., USAF (Ret.) Esq., 

Jones & Odom, LLP, Shreveport, LA 

Honorable Jeff Miller Honorable Bob Filner 

Chairman Ranking Member 

House Committee on Veterans Affairs House Committee on Veterans Affairs 

335 Cannon House Office Building 2428 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 

Re: February 9, 2011 Hearing on Alleged violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Filner, Members of the Committee: 

I am grateful to the Committee for its invitation for me to present testimony on 

alleged violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by financial institutions and related matters. Cases arising under the SCRA occupy a substantial 

amount of my law practice and I appreciate any opportunity to share with the Members of Congress information about violations I have observed and suggestions I 

have for improvements to the SCRA. 

By way of introduction, I am a practicing attorney in Shreveport, Louisiana. From 

1973 to 2005, I served as a judge advocate in the United States Air Force. Although 

I retired in 2005 in the grade of Colonel, I was recalled from retirement in 2010 

and served for 6 months in the Office of Legal Policy, Undersecretary of Defense 

for Personnel & Readiness in the Pentagon. During that tour of duty, I was the 

principal author on a Report to Congress concerning certain child custody matters 

related to the SCRA. For over 20 years, I have lectured extensively on the topic of 

the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), and the SCRA at the Air Force 

Judge Advocate General’s School at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, the Army Judge Advocate General’s Law Center and School at Charlottesville, Virginia and the Naval 

Justice School at Newport, Rhode Island. I have also lectured for local, State and 

national bar associations, judges’ conferences and judicial colleges, consumer advocacy groups, bankruptcy trustee associations and financial service groups around 

the country concerning the SSCRA and the SCRA. I have recently completed writing 

a Bench Book on the SCRA which will be published by the American Bar Association later this year. I have represented countless servicemembers in a variety of 

claims under the SCRA, both in negotiations which led to out of court settlements 

and others that resulted in successful litigation. 

At the present time, I am lead counsel for Sergeant James Hurley in his suit 

against Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and 

Orlans Associates, P.C., currently pending in the Western District of Michigan (Case 

No. 1:08–cv–361). As of February 4, 2011, over 300 pleadings had been filed in that 

case and the attorneys representing Sergeant Hurley have expended over 5,000 

hours trying to recover damages for a National Guardsman whose home was illegally foreclosed upon, his family evicted and the property sold to a third party while 

he was deployed to Iraq. The case presents the worst case scenario for any servicemember—answering the call to duty only to find that when you returned home, everything you valued most in the way of property was irrevocably gone and nothing 

you did could recover it. The most amazing aspect of Hurley is the fact that after 

nearly 3 years of litigation, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Sergeant and Mrs. Hurley against the mortgage company, the mortgage servicing company and the law firm that had carried out the illegal foreclosure—and still there 

has been no monetary settlement to compensate this family 2 years after the defendants lost by summary judgment. 

The Chairman’s invitation to present testimony asked that I inform the Committee of information I had on (1) financial institution compliance with SCRA; (2) 

how to best educate servicemembers as to their protections and responsibilities 

under SCRA; and (3) how to best inform the industries affected by SCRA as to their 

obligations. I was also asked to include any suggested changes or clarifications I believe need to be made to improve the SCRA. 

I want to thank this Committee and the entire Congress for the significant improvements made to the SCRA near the end of the 111th Congress. Specifically, the 

amendments to the SCRA contained in the Veterans’ Benefit Act of 2010, Public 

Law 111–275, amended section 305 of the Act (50 U.S.C. App. § 535) to specifically 

prevent any early termination fees for leases of premises or motor vehicles being 

terminated under the Act. It also revised section 305a (50 U.S.C. App. § 535a) to 

make termination of cell phone service contracts easier for servicemembers who are 

transferred to an area where their contract carrier does not offer service. Finally, 

and most importantly, Public Law 111–275 established a new Title VIII for the 

SCRA, comprised of sections 801 through 803 (50 U.S.C. App. § 597, 597a and 597b) 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

that clarify that the Attorney General has enforcement authority and that a private 

cause of action exists for damages plus costs and attorneys fees to sue violators of 

the SCRA. Those amendments are invaluable and I express my sincere appreciation 

for that action. When the President signed the law on October 13, 2010, he took 

action that will eliminate the need for future litigants to prove, as was the case in 

Sergeant Hurley’s case, that they had a right to bring an action for damages against 

violators of their SCRA rights. That exercise in Hurley alone took nearly 2 years 

and countless hours of legal work to convince a Federal judge that Sergeant Hurley 

had a right to be in court. 

1. Financial Institution Compliance with SCRA 

After handling hundreds of SCRA issues related to financial institutions, I am 

convinced that many of the financial institutions in our country, including some of 

our largest banks and mortgage companies, have a fundamental misunderstanding 

of the SCRA. Specifically, with regard to pre-service obligations, the financial community is well aware of the procedures necessary for a servicemember to request 

interest rate relief under 50 U.S.C. App. § 527. If a servicemember has a pre-service 

obligation that bears interest at a rate above 6 percent per annum, they can make 

written demand to the creditor for reduction in the interest rate to no more than 

6 percent. Per the terms of the SCRA, the servicemember must submit to the creditor a copy of their military orders. That demand for interest rate relief can be made 

at any time during the period of service, or within 180 days after release from active 

duty and any reduction would be retroactive to the first date of active duty. We refer 

to that as a section 527 request and the banks and other financial institutions know 

precisely how to administer such demands. 

The complete disconnect comes when the situation moves from demands for interest rate relief under section 527 to the protections against non-judicial foreclosures 

of mortgages under 50 U.S.C. App. § 533. The existing mortgage foreclosure protection—regardless of whether the default on the mortgage occurs prior to or during 

the period of active duty—provides that no sale, foreclosure or seizure of property 

for a breach of a mortgage protected by the SCRA (that is, a pre-service mortgage) 

is valid if made during or within 9 months after the period of service except upon 

a court order granted before such sale, foreclosure, or seizure with a return made and 

approved by the court. In other words, if a mortgage is protected by the SCRA, no 

self-help, or non-judicial foreclosure is allowed. There are 23 States in which some 

form of non-judicial foreclosure is ordinarily allowed. In those States, the mortgage 

companies will have obtained a waiver of any legal proceedings in the event of a 

default in the mortgage documents themselves. However, such a waiver is invalid 

under 50 U.S.C. App. § 517. When the mortgage companies want to foreclose on 

mortgage protected by the SCRA, they must file an ordinary lawsuit and get service 

on the defendant-servicemember. The servicemember is then entitled to a hearing 

before a judge, who has the power to stay the foreclosure, adjust the obligations between the parties and basically do just about anything the judge wants to do to protect the servicemember and his or her family from foreclosure. The mortgage companies have a hard time accepting the fact that the SCRA alters the terms of conventional contracts—but that is precisely what the Act does. 

In my experience, the mortgage companies do not understand that they cannot 

foreclose on an SCRA-protected mortgage except judicially. I am aware of any number of cases, Hurley being a prime example, in which the mortgage company stubbornly demanded copies of the servicemembers’ individual orders before according 

them SCRA protection. That may be appropriate in a section 527 interest rate relief 

case, but it is completely improper in a section 533 case involving protection from 

a non-judicial foreclosure. The creditors have the burden of ascertaining the military 

status of debtors before exercising any non-judicial foreclosure rights. Congress 

shifted the burden from the servicemember (where the burden falls in a section 527 

interest rate relief situation) to the creditor (where it falls in a section 533 mortgage 

foreclosure situation). The creditors have no right to try and shift that burden back 

to the servicemembers. 

Banks and mortgage companies cannot have a ‘‘one size fits all’’ SCRA compliance 

policy. A policy that may be valid for compliance with Section 527 interest rate relief 

requests is probably useless for section 533 mortgage foreclosures if the creditor is 

insistent on receiving copies of orders before granting SCRA protection from nonjudicial foreclosures. 

The Hurley case is illustrative of the problem. During the run up period prior to 

his actual reporting for active duty, Sergeant Hurley received his unit mobilization 

orders at the weekend drill in September 2004. He knew he was being mobilized 

and from the point he received those orders, he was protected under Titles I, II and 

III of the SCRA (see 50 U.S.C. App. § 516. His mother, holding a power of attorney 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

from him, contacted the mortgage servicing company on his loan a total of six separate times informing Saxon Mortgage Services that Sergeant Hurley was being mobilized and would go on active duty effective 25 October 2004. The notifications included having Sergeant Hurley’s commanding officer fax a letter to Saxon indicating 

‘‘this soldier is trying to claim his SCRA rights.’’ Saxon already had Hurley’s name, 

Social Security Account Number and unit information from earlier orders he had 

sent to them. The fax from the commanding officer included a letter advising that 

Sergeant Hurley would be on active duty beginning 25 October 2004 for a period 

of up to 18 months, and included a copy of the First Army unit mobilization orders. 

Sergeant Hurley’s individual orders were not issued until 12 October 2004. Despite 

all of those notices (which the Federal judge on the case has determined provided 

more than enough information for Saxon to know Sergeant Hurley was protected 

by the SCRA), Saxon referred the file to a Michigan foreclosure firm, Orlans Associates, P.C., which initiated a non-judicial foreclosure on Sergeant Hurley’s property 

on 14 October 2004. In the referral of the file, Saxon failed to notify Orlans that 

Hurley’s case might involve protections under the SCRA. Obviously, the Hurley file 

must have been referred to Orlans Associates for foreclosure at some time prior to 

12 October 2004 (the date of Hurley’s orders). In other words, Saxon was demanding 

Hurley submit something that did not exist—his individual orders and refusing to 

follow the SCRA’s prohibition against non-judicial foreclosures under they— not 

Congress—felt like granting Hurley SCRA protection. 

As the court in Hurley ultimately ruled, it was Sergeant Hurley’s status as a mobilized member of the National Guard that provided the SCRA protection—regardless of Saxon Mortgage Services’ illegal policy demanding that orders—that did not 

even exist— be submitted before protection would be accorded him. Saxon continually attempted to impose on the servicemember a requirement from one section of 

the SCRA (Section 527’s requirement to submit a copy of the orders) in a case arising under another section of the Act (Section 533). The Supreme Court in Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511 (1993) has ruled that the Act is a ‘‘carefully reticulated’’ 

statute. Congress is presumed to know what it enacts and requirements of one section of the Act cannot be superimposed on another section of the Act. If Congress 

wants to amend the law, fine—but the creditors do not get to decide when a servicemember is protected. The Congress has already made that decision. 

One simple illustration suffices to show why an SCRA compliance policy that requires submission of orders before section 533 protections are accorded is invalid. 

Suppose a servicemember had a mortgage that had an interest rate below 6 percent. 

In such a case, the servicemember would not be entitled to any relief from his or 

her mortgage company and might go off to war without ever notifying the mortgagee 

of anything. Thereafter, if the mortgage obligation went into default (the reason for 

the default is completely immaterial), it would be preposterous for a mortgage company—claiming that it could foreclose non-judicially because the mortgagor had 

never sent in a copy of his or her orders—to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure and 

then sell the property. Such a violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 533 would be viewed as 

a travesty, and would have taken place because the creditor failed to take the minimal time required to ascertain the active duty status of the mortgagor. 

The Department of Defense, through the Defense Manpower Data Center, 

maintains a publically accessible Web site (https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/ 

scraHome.do) where anyone can check the active duty status of a person with only 

a name, Social Security number and date of birth (or just a name and either a Social Security number or a date of birth). Every creditor is going to have a Social 

Security number on a mortgage debtor to issue the certification of the amount of 

interest paid at year end for income tax returns. It takes only a few seconds to type 

in the necessary search data and about 5 seconds for a certificate to pop up on the 

computer screen advising if the person is on active duty and, if so, what branch, 

the initial date of active duty and, if the person has been released from active duty 

within the past 366 days, the date of last active duty. The process is so simple that 

there is no excuse whatsoever for a creditor not ascertaining the military status of 

a debtor before any non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceeding is commenced. 

I have permission from several clients to mention their names and briefly describe 

their battles with mortgage companies. I represented Sergeant John Savage of 

North Carolina several years ago in a suit against a major lender that had lowered 

his interest rate on his request and sent him a letter advising him of the new, lower 

monthly payment. He left for Iraq and every month his wife sent in the new payment, the payment center returned the check with a notation that they did not accept partial payments. After several months, the mortgage company posted a notice 

of non-judicial foreclosure on the door of their home. When Mrs. Savage came home 

from her job at Wal-Mart, she found their teenage son curled up on the front porch 

inconsolable after he had seen the foreclosure notice and believed the family was 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

about to become homeless—all because their father had answered his country’s call 

to arms. While we got the foreclosure stopped, the bank did not clean up Sergeant 

Savage’s credit and when he returned—injured and partially disabled—he was unable to borrow any money to restart his small business. All because the payment 

center of the bank did not get the word from the legal department. 

Chief Warrant Officer 2d Class Chip Pickett of Arizona had me on his speed dial 

from Iraq. When he was not flying helicopter missions in combat, he was doing battle with Bank of America which, although they had coded his mortgage as SCRA 

protected, for unknown reasons kept referring it to a non-judicial foreclosure four 

different times over an 8-month period. Every time Chip would call, I would have 

to stop everything I was doing and contact Bank of America to get the same wrong 

answer—‘‘The house is not going to be foreclosed upon. Uh-oh, wait a minute. We’ll 

need to contact that law firm and stop the foreclosure sale set for tomorrow.’’ Frustrating does not begin to describe how the process made me feel. To think that anyone deployed overseas could handle these types of problems is ridiculous. Moreover, 

Chip’s mind was diverted from the one thing we really wanted him to be concentrating on—flying his aircraft safely and effectively. This is a combat effectiveness 

issue if ever there was one. 

The banks are going to have to improve their internal communications and implement SCRA compliance policies that actually comply with the law. If regulators are 

going to audit SCRA compliance, this Committee must make sure the auditors understand what they are supposed to be looking for. Most regulators came from the 

banking industry, and I have low confidence in their understanding of what ‘‘no 

non-judicial foreclosures’’ actually means. 

2. Education of Servicemembers on Rights and Responsibilities 

The SCRA already requires education of all new servicemembers on their rights 

and responsibilities under the SCRA. However, young people tend to hear what they 

want to hear. They hear about 6-percent interest rate caps and tune out the part 

about ‘‘pre-service obligations.’’ They hear ‘‘SCRA-protected’’ and some of the troops 

mistakenly think that means they can stop making their monthly payments. 

The sources of good, reliable information on the SCRA are almost too many to 

count. Within the DoD, the Military OneSource Web site has accurate and understandable information about SCRA and specifically how to deal with mortgage problems available within two clicks of the mouse when on their site. I have reviewed 

the materials and they are quite good. 

Every post, base and station with a Legal Office has trained Legal Assistance officers available for assistance. Through the training these judge advocates, civilian 

attorneys and paralegals receive at the Service JAG Schools, they are able to assist 

in contacting creditors, drafting correspondence and giving advice to servicemembers 

on SCRA matters. Financial counseling is available at most of the larger installations, and those counselors know to send the servicemembers to the Legal Office 

when the situation calls for it. 

The American Bar Association’s Legal Assistance to Military Personnel Committee holds quarterly meetings at military installations around the country. Generally, a 1-day continuing legal education seminar, always featuring SCRA instruction, is conducted for local members of the bar as well as military attorneys. 

Through the ABA’s Military Pro Bono Program, hundreds of qualified attorneys 

around the country have volunteered to assist servicemembers (E–6 and below) in 

civilian legal matters in court, including SCRA issues. 

Since many of the SCRA’s protections apply primarily to Reserve and Guard 

members (who generally have more pre-service obligations than active duty servicemembers), the judge advocates for those units are especially well aware of the 

SCRA’s protections and their members’ responsibilities. Many of those units draft 

the notices to creditors required by section 527 for the members and have form letters available for that purpose. 

3. Training for the Banking and Credit Industry on SCRA 

I am not aware of what types of seminars bank compliance officers conduct or attend to ensure compliance with the SCRA. Based on depositions we have taken in 

the Hurley case, the two compliance officers offered as experts by one of the defendants were simply not competent to interpret the SCRA. The SCRA specialists with 

the mortgage servicing company demanded copies of Sergeant Hurley’s orders and 

did not afford him SCRA protection when he did not submit orders (which did not 

then exist). In their depositions, they acknowledged that they had never read the 

SCRA, did not understand how it worked, and only knew that they had a compliance policy that started with the words ‘‘the member is responsible for submitting 

his orders and no SCRA protection will be granted until the bank has reviewed the 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

orders and determined that SCRA protections should be in effect,’’ or words to that 

effect. 

Bank regulators should receive training in the SCRA and then devise audit criteria for the banks under their supervision and control to ensure that the Act—both 

as to requests for interest rate relief and as to protection of servicemembers from 

non-judicial foreclosure and default judgments—was being followed. A ‘‘one size fits 

all’’ SCRA compliance policy does not exist. Different sections of the Act require different efforts by the banks to provide SCRA compliance. 

4. Recommendations for Amendments to the SCRA 

I recommend the following technical amendments to the SCRA: 

1. Amend 50 U.S.C. App. § 597a of the SCRA to provide that no action brought 

to enforce a member’s rights or obtain damages as a result of SCRA violations 

shall be subject to a mandatory arbitration clause in the contract or other obligation that gives rise to the suit. 

2. Amend section 305 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 535) to (a) clarify that an 

order to a servicemember to move from off-base into on-base quarters qualifies 

as a grounds to terminate a lease earlier than its term, and (b) that the term 

‘‘permanent change of station’’ has the definition found in the Joint Federal 

Travel Regulations (which would include ETS moves, and retirement moves). 

3. Further amend section 305 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 535) to delete subparagraph (i), and move that language to section 101 (50 U.S.C. App. 511). The 

broader definition of ‘‘military orders’’ should apply to all sections of the SCRA 

in which a servicemember is required to submit copies of military orders to a 

creditor or other obligee. Many times, the individual servicemember’s orders 

are not cut and published until he/she has either actually gone on a deployment or is so close to departure that other matters are more pressing than getting copies of orders to creditors. If the general definitions in the SCRA of 

‘‘military orders’’ and ‘‘CONUS’’ were included in section 101, commanders 

would be able to write letters certifying the upcoming active duty status of a 

member of the Guard or Reserve (or active force) so that creditors’ demands 

for copies of military orders could be deemed satisfied. This has been a huge 

issue in Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, since the bank’s defense 

was that Sergeant Hurley did not supply a copy of his individual military orders to the mortgagee and the bank therefore did not extend to him SCRA protection against non-judicial foreclosure of his mortgage. Of course, Congress 

has differentiated between a case in which the soldier requests interest rate 

relief under 50 U.S.C. App. § 527 (and is required to submit a copy of his military orders) and a situation in which a mortgagee wishes to proceed non-judicially to seize property and foreclose on a mortgage (in which case under 50 

U.S.C. App. § 533, there is no obligation on the part of the servicemember to 

do anything to be protected). However, the vast majority of banks have one 

SCRA compliance policy and it is geared to interest rate relief requests. Therefore, anything Congress could do to satisfy the requirement of submission of 

military orders (including changing the definition of what qualifies as ‘‘military 

orders’’ under the SCRA) would be helpful. 

4. Amend section 203 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 523) to clarify that an early 

pre-payment penalty on a mortgage is included within the coverage of that section and providing that if it is necessary for a servicemember to obtain a court 

order to force a creditor to waive an early pre-payment penalty for a mortgage 

when the pre-payment is a result of either a deployment in excess of 180 days 

or a PCS move, the creditor shall be liable for the reasonable attorneys fees 

and costs incurred by the servicemember to obtain such a court order. 

5. Amend the SCRA to clarify that the Act applies to the debts and obligations 

of limited liability companies and Subchapter S corporations, including property taxes owed by those entities, when the company/corporation is wholly 

owned by the servicemember or the servicemember and a spouse and, in the 

case of debts other than taxes, the servicemember is personally liable on the 

debt, either as a co-maker or as a guarantor. (Property taxes will never be a 

personal liability of the servicemember who owns the business, but loss of the 

business due to a tax sale will obviously adversely impact the servicemember, 

so the protections of the SCRA should be extended to tax debts of businesses 

wholly owned by the servicemember.) 

6. Amend section 201(b)(2) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 521(b)(2)) to provide 

that the reasonable fees of the attorney appointed by the court to represent the 

servicemember shall be taxed as costs of court. 

7. Amend the SCRA to add a provision that the expiration dates of any license 

or certification issued by any State or Federal agency (including driver’s liVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

censes, nurses’ licenses, contractors’ licenses, etc.) shall be extended to a period 

that is 90 days after the release from active duty of a servicemember. Additionally, add a provision to exempt from the requirements of continuing legal or 

medical education levied by any State or Federal agency, bar or medical association any servicemember who is serving in a legal or medical billet and is 

deployed outside the CONUS for 180 days or more during the year. 

8. Amend section 303 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 533(b) and (c) to extend the 

protection against non-judicial foreclosures from 9 months to 12 months. That 

would bring the SCRA mortgage protection provision in line with the extension 

of the interest rate cap of 6 percent for mortgage debt found in Section 207 

of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 527). As it is now, the protection against nonjudicial mortgage foreclosure extends for 9 months but the interest rate protection extends for 12 months after release from active duty. Making the two periods different by 3 months makes no real sense. The extension periods should 

be the same. 

There is one other action this Committee could recommend that would be invaluable in trying to promote understanding of and compliance with the SCRA. When 

the SCRA was enacted in 2003, the Government Printing Office printed the entire 

text of the Act in a single document. Since that date, because of numerous minor 

and some major amendments, the GPO has not reprinted the SCRA in a single document. It would be most helpful for servicemembers, practitioners and those responsible for compliance with the Act to have access to a single document (that did not 

require a subscription to LEXIS–NEXIS of Westlaw to obtain) where the complete 

text of the Act, current through the end of the 111th Congress, could be found in 

readily available format. 

I appreciate the opportunity to have submitted this testimony to the Committee 

and would be happy to entertain any questions the Members or their staffs might 

have. Please address any questions to me at john.odom@jodplaw.com. 

Respectfully submitted, 

John S. Odom, Jr., 

f 

Colonel, USAF (Ret.) 

Statement of Hon. Silvestre Reyes, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 

I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner for calling this 

hearing and bringing this important issue before the Committee. Since the Civil 

War we have recognized the importance of providing financial protection to the men 

and women who serve our great Nation. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines 

risk their lives protecting our freedom; the least we can do is protect them from the 

financial hardships that may result from their time in combat. 

As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I saw firsthand the financial uncertainty that 

comes with being deployed. Every day that a servicemember is away, their loved 

ones worry about their safety. Equally concerning to the deployed servicemember is 

the financial wellbeing of the family they left behind. It is imperative that we provide them protections that ensure their fiscal security. 

It is deeply concerning to me that we are here today because some of our Nation’s 

largest financial institutions have failed to afford these great men and women the 

protections provided by this Congress—this is both unpatriotic and shows a lack of 

respect for their service. It is my hope that the information provided in today’s hearing will allow us to ensure that this does not occur again in the future. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

February 15, 2011 

Naomi Gendler Camper 

Managing Director and Head of Federal Government Relations 

JPMorgan Chase 

601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Naomi: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing entitled ‘‘Allegations Regarding the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,’’ that took place on February 9, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on April 1, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 

New York, NY. 

April 1, 2011 

The Honorable Bob Filner 

Ranking Democratic Member 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Hearing Questions Regarding the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

Dear Congressman Filner: 

I am writing on behalf of JPMorgan Chase (‘‘Chase’’), in response to your letter 

to dated February 15, 2011, enclosing questions arising out of the February 9 hearing on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (‘‘SCRA’’). 

1. How often does the bank perform audits to check for this type of problem? 

Chase Home Lending has recently enhanced its processes to attempt to ensure 

that: (1) the correct interest rate and fees are applied to SCRA-protected loans; and 

(2) no foreclosures against SCRA-protected servicemembers go forward. A number 

of these enhancements involve frequent reviews and quality checks to ensure that 

Chase’s processes comply with the SCRA. So, for example, there are now daily reviews of the entire set of SCRA-protected loans to ensure fee, subsidy and rate protections are in place. Similarly, Chase now conducts several checks at various stages 

prior to and subsequent to foreclosure referral to determine whether a borrower is 

protected by the SCRA. 

Chase’s Internal Audit department will periodically review Chase’s procedures for 

compliance with SCRA requirements. The Internal Audit department is currently 

conducting a review of the existing processes, and will conduct a full audit of the 

enhanced processes in the coming year. 

2. How many families have not received a refund yet? 

Chase Home Lending has now sent approximately 6,000 refund checks to SCRA 

borrowers. In almost all of these cases, Chase paid the servicemembers more than 

double the amounts of the estimated overcharges or fees. The review of borrowers’ 

files is ongoing, and Chase expects that it may identify additional accounts where 

it mistakenly overcharged servicemember borrowers or charged SCRA-protected borVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

rowers fees. However, Chase has now sent refund checks to all servicemembers it 

has identified as being entitled to a refund for overcharges or fees, with the exception of a small number of borrowers with whom it is in active litigation. 

3. In what situations does JPMorgan Chase deny access to a borrower’s 

account? 

It is Chase policy to discontinue account statements to borrowers with whom it 

is in litigation. 

4. You recently established a team dedicated to servicing home loans to 

military personnel in South Carolina. How will their training differ from 

your previous training? What type of checks and balances are you establishing to prevent this from happening again? 

One of the issues with Chase Home Lending’s SCRA processes was that there 

were errors in the reading of military orders. To address this, the initial set-up of 

SCRA loans has now been consolidated in a single unit in Florence, South Carolina; 

new personnel have been installed to manage this process; and enhanced training 

has been given to these employees. Former members of the military are involved 

in this process to assist Chase in interpreting military orders from each branch. 

The majority of the Special Loans SCRA team was initially trained in October/ 

November 2009 when the SCRA function for the combined Chase mortgage portfolio 

was transitioned to Florence, South Carolina. Additional training was conducted in 

March and April 2010. In addition, during weekly staff meetings, review and training for unique military orders or nuances in order interpretation is a standing agenda topic. On average, each individual on this team has reviewed hundreds of military orders over the last 12 months. 

The review of the orders, which is a manual process, also is now subject to additional quality control; an additional Chase employee reviews each order to ensure 

that the protection periods have been properly identified. In addition, when SCRA 

protection has been claimed, denial of SCRA protection requires senior manager 

sign off. 

Another issue with Chase’s SCRA processes was the calculation and accounting 

for the SCRA interest rate. Now, 100 percent quality control has been put in place 

around the calculation of and accounting for the interest rate. 

To address the customer service issues, Chase has created a dedicated hotline for 

military customers staffed by personnel trained on SCRA compliance issues. This 

customer service hotline is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These same personnel will provide customer service to any military borrower who calls Chase’s general customer service line. 

5. Under protections against foreclosure of mortgages under title 50, section 533, the SCRA does not require that servicemembers provide military 

orders. Does JPMorgan Chase require servicemembers to submit military 

orders to provide these protections? 

Chase does not require servicemembers to submit military orders before Chase 

provides the protections of SCRA section 533 against foreclosure. Chase now has 

procedures in place to check the Department of Defense Web site to verify military 

status at multiple stages of the foreclosure process to ensure that it does not foreclose on a servicemember who is protected by SCRA or the Housing and Economic 

Reform Act (‘‘HERA’’). 

6. There have been a number of families who were foreclosed. Does 

JPMorgan Chase correct their damaged credit reports? 

Chase Home Lending is currently assessing and correcting the credit reporting of 

servicemembers to whom it sent refund checks and those upon whom it wrongfully 

foreclosed. Currently, all credit reporting is suppressed for SCRA loans during the 

SCRA protection period. 

7. Please state how many executive vice presidents there are at 

JPMorgan Chase. 

JPMorgan Chase has 20 Executive Vice Presidents at the corporate level. Stephanie Mudick is one of these Executive Vice Presidents, and is a member of 

JPMorgan Chase’s Executive Committee, which comprises 55 senior officers who 

lead its businesses and functions. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (212) 909–6947 if you have any additional 

questions. 

Sincerely yours, 

Andrew J. Ceresney 

cc: Chairman Jeff Miller 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

February 15, 2011 

The Honorable Robert M. Gates 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Defense 

The Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301–1155 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing entitled ‘‘Allegations Regarding the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,’’ that took place on February 9, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on April 1, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

Hearing Date: February 09, 2011 

Committee: HVAC 

Member: Congressman Filner 

Witness: Colonel Shumake 

SCRA Protections 

Question 1: When did you become aware that JPMorgan Chase was violating 

protections afforded under the SCRA? 

Answer: I received a call from a Senate Veterans’ Affairs staffer on January 13, 

2011, asking if I had heard about a class action lawsuit involving JPMorgan Chase, 

one that may have involved interest rate cap issues. I had not, but indicated I would 

check with my contacts in the American Bankers Association. I did and soon received a call indicating that representatives from JPMorgan Chase would be contacting me shortly. I received a call from JPMorgan Chase on January 14, 2011. 

They explained the law suit and admitted that they had incorrectly calculated interest rate rates for many servicemembers. They also indicated they had improperly 

foreclosed on the homes of 15–20 servicemembers. They outlined the steps they were 

taking to correct their errors and provided a hotline number established for servicemembers. 

Information Flow 

Question 2: Did JPMorgan Chase reach out to inform you of these violations or 

did you become aware through the various media outlets? 

Answer: I received a call from JPMorgan Chase officials on January 14, 2011. 

This was the Friday before the Today show reported the story the next Monday 

morning. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Financial Institutions Violating the Law 

Question 3: Are you aware of any other financial institutions that may be currently violating the law? 

Answer: Although the Department of Defense is aware of allegations, and provides legal assistance to servicemembers and their families regarding their rights 

under the SCRA, the Department does not investigate private companies’ compliance with the SCRA. 

The Department of Justice may have more specific information on violations of 

the SCRA. 

I have attached a complaint in an ongoing class action suit against Citibank alleging violations of the interest rate cap provision of the SCRA. The Department does 

not take a position about the merits of this case. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 

Ms. Lyndsey M.D. Olson, on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly situated, Court File No. 10–2992 (PAM/JKK) 

Plaintiff, 

vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Citibank (New York State), 

A New York state chartered bank, 

Citibank, N.A., 

a Nevada commercial bank, and 

Student Loan Corporation, 

a Delaware corporation, 

Defendants. 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Intrinsic to military service is sacrifice. Part of the sacrifice made by America’s servicemen and women is financial sacrifice. Leaving behind family, 

friends and the comforts of civilian life to answer our country’s call to duty 

inherently includes leaving behind careers, jobs, and financial security. The 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (‘‘SCRA’’), 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501–596 was enacted in recognition of this sacrifice. 

2. Both the letter and spirit of the SCRA acknowledge the sacrifice made by our 

military men and women so as ‘‘to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the 

national defense through protection—to servicemembers of the United States 

to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of 

the Nation. . . .’’ 50 U.S.C. App. § 502. 

3. Defendants, regrettably, have failed to honor the active duty status of America’s fighting forces. Despite the prohibitions of SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501– 

596, Defendants have charged excess interest on servicemembers’ loans as 

well as imposing a forbearance status as a pre-condition to receiving the interest reduction. Defendants have illegally capitalized interest resulting from 

the mandatory forbearance they imposed on servicemembers’ loans. They 

charged interest on the capitalized interest which raised the effective interest 

rate on the loan. 

4. Ms. Lyndsey M.D. Olson brings this class action on behalf of herself and other 

similarly situated servicemembers who have been or will be injured by Defendants’ failure to promptly and fully comply with the requirements of SCRA 

without added pre-conditions. 

PARTIES 

5. Ms. Lyndsey M.D. Olson (f/k/a Ms. Lyndsey M.D. Kimber, f/k/a Lyndsey Margaret Davis) is a Minnesota resident and a Captain in the Minnesota Army 

National Guard. She began a period of active duty on March 1, 2005. One 

year of her active duty service was spent in Iraq, from June 2008 to May 

2009. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

6. Defendant Citibank, N.A. (‘‘Citibank’’) is a national commercial bank, with its 

principal place of business at 3900 Paradise Road, Suite 127, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89109. 

7. Defendant Citibank (New York State) (‘‘CNYS’’) is or was a New York State 

chartered bank, with its principal place of business at 99 Garnsey Rd., 

Pittsford, New York, 14534. Upon information and belief, it merged with 

Citibank, N.A. in August of 2003. 

8. Defendant The Student Loan Corporation (‘‘Student Loan’’) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 750 Washington Blvd., Stamford, Connecticut, 06901. Upon information and belief, Defendant CNYS 

owned 80 percent of Student Loan’s shares until its merger with Citibank, 

N.A. Also upon information and belief, Citibank and/or Citigroup sold its interest in the Student Loan Corporation at the end of 2010. 

9. At all relevant times, and at least until the end of 2010, all of the Defendants 

were wholly owned or controlled by Citigroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business at 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 

10043. 

10. Monthly statements and other correspondence received by Ms. Olson illustrate the closely intertwined relationship between the Defendants. For example, Ms. Olson’s monthly statements were jointly captioned ‘‘Citibank’’ and 

‘‘The Student Loan Corporation.’’ Payments, in turn, were sent to ‘‘Student 

Loan Corporation, c/o Citibank (Nevada), N.A.’’ Letters to Ms. Olson were 

typically sent on Citibank letterhead, but stated ‘‘CitiAssist student loans are 

originated by Citibank, N.A. and assigned to The Student Loan Corporation.’’ 

See Exh. 1. Pay Online statements referred to ‘‘Citi.com,’’ and indicated that 

all copyrights were held by Citigroup, Inc. (parent company of Student Loan 

and Citibank, N.A.). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

11. Ms. Lyndsey Olson is a ‘‘servicemember’’ as defined in the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. 

App. § 511(1), and is in ‘‘military service’’ as defined in § 511(2)(A)(i). 

12. Defendants are ‘‘creditors’’ for purposes of the interest rate limitation provisions of the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. § 527. 

13. Plaintiff and each class member have a qualifying ‘‘obligation or liability’’ to 

Defendants within the meaning of the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. § 527(a). 

14. Defendants have systematically violated the interest rate limitation provisions of the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. § 527, by overcharging interest or by not 

crediting back correct amounts when they receive notice of military service 

status after the commencement of the military service and/or active duty period (the phrases ‘‘military service’’ and ‘‘active duty’’ are used interchangeably throughout this Complaint to mean the period of time to which § 527 applies). 

15. Defendants have systematically violated the SCRA by unilaterally placing 

Plaintiff’s and each class member’s loans in forbearance status as a pre-condition to receiving the SCRA interest rate reduction. 

16. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

17. Venue in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is 

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all Defendants routinely conduct business in the State of Minnesota, and thus can be said to ‘‘reside’’ here, and 

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

in this action occurred in the State of Minnesota. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: 

18. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act was signed into law by President George 

W. Bush on December 19, 2003. The SCRA is a revision of the Soldier’s and 

Sailor’s Civil Relief Act of 1940 (‘‘SSCRA’’), and was intended, in part, to ease 

the economic and legal burdens on military personnel called to active-duty 

status in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

19. National Guard and National Air Guard personnel on duty for training or 

other duty authorized by 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) at the request of the President, 

for or in support of an operation during war or national emergency declared 

by the President or Congress are also covered by the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. 

§ 511(2)(A)(ii). 

20. Among the protections granted to active-duty servicemembers under the 

SCRA is a 6 percent per year cap on most interest-bearing debts incurred before the start of active duty. Thus, for example, if a new active-duty serviceVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

member has pre-existing credit card debt incurring interest at an annual percentage rate (‘‘APR’’) of 21 percent, the SCRA would require the credit card 

issuer to lower the APR on that debt to 6 percent per year throughout that 

servicemember’s time of active duty. Interest must be forgiven in excess of 

6 percent per year, not just deferred, pursuant to SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. 

§ 527(a)(2). 

21. The servicemember must give written notice of the active duty status in order 

to obtain the 6 percent per year interest rate. The written notice, however, 

can be given anytime up to 180 days after the end of the servicemember’s active duty period. SCRA § 527(b)(1). If the notice is given after the start of the 

active duty period, then the creditor must apply the 6 percent per year retroactively to the start date of active duty service. Id at § 527(b)(2). 

22. The United States Supreme Court has held that the SSCRA must be read 

‘‘with an eye friendly to those who dropped their affairs to answer their country’s call.’’ Le Maistre v. Leffers, 333 U.S. 1, 6, 68 S. Ct. 371, 373 (1948). 

23. The SCRA limits the interest rate to be charged to a maximum of 6 percent 

per year. Nowhere does the language of the Act permit capitalization of interest (i.e. adding unpaid accrued interest to the principal balance and then 

charging interest on the total). Also, nowhere does the language of the Act 

permit compounding interest (ie. charging interest upon previously accrued 

interest). 

24. Federal courts have long recognized that compounding results in a higher effective interest rate. 

25. Federal courts have long recognized that capitalization of interest also leads 

to a higher effective interest rate. 

26. § 527 of the SCRA limits the interest that can be charged to ‘‘6 percent per 

year,’’ which means the interest must be calculated based on the simple interest method. 

27. In the absence of explicit language in a statute authorizing compounding of 

interest, the creditor is limited to simple interest. 

28. Similarly, contract law also follows the rule that the contract must specifically 

authorize compounding, and in the absence of explicit contract language, the 

creditor can only use a simple interest calculation. 

29. In the alternative, even if SCRA were silent as to method of interest calculation, which it is not, if the underlying note does not explicitly provide for 

compounding or capitalization, the creditor cannot, unilaterally, compound or 

capitalize interest. 

30. Also, where a loan contract does not specifically authorize (1) placing the loan 

in forbearance, and (2) capitalization of interest accrued during the forbearance period, the creditor may not unilaterally change the loan terms and impose mandatory forbearance or capitalize interest accrued during the forbearance period. 

31. When a servicemember does not specifically agree to placement of his or her 

loan into forbearance status, the creditor may not unilaterally place the loan 

into forbearance status and then capitalize interest accrued during the forbearance period. 

32. The SCRA does not allow a creditor to unilaterally impose mandatory forbearance status on a servicemember’s loan and then capitalize the unpaid interest 

simply as a result of the servicemember exercising his or her right to the 6 

percent per year interest rate cap. Furthermore, such actions by the creditor 

violate the spirit of the SCRA, a law that must be read liberally and with an 

eye friendly toward servicemembers. 

Ms. Olson’s Loan: 

33. Ms. Olson first joined the Minnesota Army National Guard in January 2001. 

In 1998, she had earned a bachelor’s degree from Stephens College, in Columbia, Missouri, majoring in philosophy, law, and rhetoric. In order to finance 

her final year of college, Ms. Olson applied for an $8,000 private student loan 

through Defendant Citibank’s CitiAssist program. On July 16, 1997, Ms. 

Olson received notice that her application had been approved, and she received her loan funds in two equal distributions, one on July 16, 1997, and 

the other on August 25, 1997. See Exh. 2. 

34. Ms. Olson began making regular payments on her student loan in December 

1998, and has never incurred a late payment fee. The interest rate on her 

loan is variable, and has fluctuated between 4.25 percent and 9.25 percent. 

As Ms. Olson sought further education, her loan periodically went into forbearance while she was in school. During these periods of forbearance, the interest payments on her loan were capitalized, meaning the interest that acVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:19 Jul 07, 2011 Jkt 065867 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\65867.XXX 65867

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

crued during these periods of forbearance was ultimately added to Ms. Olson’s 

principal balance. 

35. In 2000, Ms. Olson enrolled in Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, 

Minnesota with the hope of serving as a Judge Advocate (‘‘JAG’’) in the 

United States Armed Forces after graduation. When Ms. Olson graduated in 

2003, she was primary editor of the Hamline Law Review. Following graduation, she attended the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General School in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

36. Ms. Olson began her active duty on March 1, 2005. On May 6, 2008, Ms. 

Olson received orders deploying her to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. She was stationed in Balad, Iraq, where she served as International 

Law Officer and Brigade Trial Counsel to the 34th Combat Aviation Brigade. 

She returned from Iraq in June 2009 and was stationed at the U.S. Army 

Judge Advocate General School in Charlottesville, Virginia to obtain her LLM 

degree. She finished her degree in May, 2010. 

37. On May 26, 2006, Ms. Olson notified Defendants in writing that she had been 

called to active duty, and enclosed copies of her orders. See Exh. 3. Approximately 5 months later, Defendant Citibank notified her by letter that it had 

received her correspondence and would limit her interest to 6 percent per year 

as required by the SCRA. The letter went on, however, to state that an 

(unrequested and mandatory) forbearance was also being ‘‘granted’’ on her 

loan, and that any accrued interest during this time would be capitalized 

when her forbearance ended. See Exh. 4. Defendants took the above actions 

unilaterally. Ms. Olson did not agree to the forbearance or the capitalization 

of interest. 

38. When Ms. Olson informed Citibank of her active duty status, she did not request that her account be placed in forbearance status. See Olson letter dated 

May 26, 2006, Exh. 3. Instead, contrary to the SCRA, Citibank placed it in 

forbearance status on its own without her request or consent. When she called 

Citibank to advise them that she did not want her account placed in forbearance status, she was told it was Citibank’s policy to place accounts in forbearance status in order for the servicemember to receive the SCRA interest rate 

reduction, and that Citibank would not give her the rate reduction without 

that status change. 

39. Ms. Olson requested to speak to a manager regarding this policy and was told 

the same thing. 

40. The SCRA does not allow any conditions, other than what is stated in the 

statute, to be placed on an active duty servicemember’s right to receive an interest rate reduction. 

41. The vast majority of servicemembers deployed overseas and in combat zones, 

have limited, or no, access to the Internet for purposes of going online and 

making payments on their account, and instead rely on ‘‘auto pay’’ to have 

their bills paid on a monthly basis while they are on active duty. Ms. Olson’s 

loan was on the automatic student loan payment service prior to being placed 

on this mandatory forebearance. 

42. The consequences of a servicemember’s loan being placed in mandatory forbearance status include: (a) being denied access to the autopay option, 

through which the servicemember could have made payments in order to continue reducing principal during the active duty period, (b) the servicemember 

no longer receives monthly account statements in the mail while in forbearance, (c) both of which result in most active duty servicemembers not making 

regular payments while they are deployed because of the added effort they 

must commit to making a payment. 

43. Fewer payments being made during the forbearance period leads to a larger 

amount of interest capitalized and added to the principal balance at the end 

of the servicemembers’ active duty and when the forbearance status is lifted 

by Defendants. This results in higher compounded and/or effective interest 

rates, to the servicemembers’ detriment and to the Defendants’ benefit. 

44. Defendants are aware that requiring active duty servicemembers to go into 

forbearance status in order to receive their SCRA interest rate reduction will 

result in Defendants being able to capitalize higher amounts of interest at the 

end of the active duty period, compared to if forbearance status were not a 

requirement. 

45. If Defendants wished to offer forbearance status for neutral reasons, they 

could have simply made it optional, rather than a pre-condition to obtain the 

benefits of the SCRA. 

46. Although Ms. Olson sent her notice of active duty status to Citibank on May 

26, 2006, and despite Citibank’s duty under the SCRA to cap her interest at 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

6 percent per year, statements sent by Defendants Citibank and The Student 

Loan Corporation plainly show that Defendants continued to charge interest 

in excess of 6 percent. For example, Ms. Olson’s statement from November 

2006 showed that Defendants were charging interest at an annual percentage 

rate of 9.25 percent. See Exh. 5. 

47. Citibank eventually changed the interest rate to 6 percent on the December 

2006 statement and stated that it kept the interest rate at 6 percent (or lower 

based on the market rate, since Ms. Olson’s loan carried an adjustable rate), 

thereafter. Pursuant to the SCRA, Citibank was required to credit back to Ms. 

Olson the excess interest it charged her, going back to the beginning of her 

active duty period, i.e. March 1, 2005. However, the online statements for the 

months following Defendants’ November letter (Exh. 4) do not show Defendants credited back any interest to Ms. Olson’s account for the previous 

months of overcharges. There is no evidence in the online account information 

that the interest was credited back. In the alternative, if Defendants credited 

back any interest, the amount of excess interest it credited back to Ms. 

Olson’s account was insufficient to remedy the overcharges for the prior 

months. 

48. In the years prior to filing this action, Ms. Olson requested a copy of her account history on several occasions to determine whether Citibank had charged 

the correct interest on her loan pursuant to the SCRA and/or whether it credited back overcharged interest. Citibank sent Ms. Olson a payment history at 

two different times. See Exh. 6 and Exh. 7. The two account histories do not 

match each other. In fact, the histories contain inconsistent entries. See e.g. 

the ‘‘Interest decrease for servicemembers’’ entry dated 11/08/2006 for the 

amount of $733.30 on Exh. 6, and compare with the entries for the same time 

period on Exh. 7, where such an interest decrease is missing. 

49. Furthermore, the two account histories described above do not match the loan 

information on her monthly statements. See e.g. The monthly statement for 

November 2006, Exh. 5, shows a principal balance of $9,789.05, and the loan 

history, Exh. 6, for 11/08/2006 shows a principal balance of $8937.49. These 

and other inconsistencies made Ms. Olson’s efforts to ascertain the exact 

amounts Defendants were charging her (or crediting back, as the case may 

be) very difficult. These inconsistencies also make it easier for Defendants to 

disguise excess interest being charged despite the SCRA prohibitions. 

50. On several occasions prior to the filing of this action, Ms. Olson also requested, by telephone and in writing, a copy of her note or loan agreement 

to be sent to her. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. sent her a copy of her application rather than a formal note or contract. See Loan Application (‘‘Application’’) attached as Exh. 8. 

51. She later wrote to Citibank to specifically request the ‘‘Note’’ referenced in the 

copy of the Application it sent her. See Exh. 9. By letter dated December 30, 

2009, Citibank stated there was no ‘‘Note,’’ and that her entire agreement was 

the Application. See Exh. 10. (‘‘Thank you for your recent correspondence to 

Citibank, N.A. regarding your CitiAssist loan(s). The copy of the application 

is also a copy of the promissory note. They are one in [sic] the same.’’). Plaintiff, therefore, assumes the Application is the only remaining existing agreement for repayment of this loan. See Loan Application attached as Exh. 8. 

52. The Application does not contain any provision allowing Defendants to compound interest on her loan, which means that her loan agreement is for simple interest. Furthermore, Defendants’ own monthly statements confirm on 

the back of the statements that interest is calculated based on the ‘‘simple 

daily interest’’ method. 

53. Likewise, the Application does not contain any provision allowing Defendants 

to capitalize interest. 

54. Defendants took Ms. Olson’s loan off mandatory forbearance status sometime 

in early 2010. After Defendants took her loan off forbearance, they capitalized 

accrued interest (added it into her principal balance) and began charging her 

monthly interest on the new, inflated principal balance. Ms. Olson is still 

making monthly payments on a balance that reflects and includes the capitalized interest resulting from the mandatory forbearance imposed on her account. Also, as a result of the capitalized interest, and thus higher principal 

balance, the amount Ms. Olson owes Citibank is higher than it would have 

been had the interest not been capitalized. Therefore, due to the combination 

of mandatory forbearance and resulting capitalized interest, Ms. Olson paid 

(and is still paying) a higher effective interest rate due to Defendants’ violation of SCRA. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

55. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are capitalizing and/ 

or compounding interest on servicemembers’ loans where a SCRA rate reduction was requested, thus resulting in effective interest rates in excess of 6 percent per year. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

56. Ms. Olson brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), b(2), and b(3), 

on behalf of the following Class: 

All servicemembers who, within the statute of limitations, were in military 

service, as defined in 50 U.S.C. App. § 511(2), and who (a) carried obligations 

or liabilities to Defendants bearing interest in excess of 6 percent; (b) provided the written notice to Defendants regarding their period of military service before 180 days after the end of their military service; and (c) who were 

overcharged interest in contravention of 50 U.S.C. App. § 527(a), and/or were 

put into forbearance status as a condition of receiving the interest rate cap 

under 50 U.S.C. App. § 527(a). 

Plaintiffs specifically exclude from the class: 

a. Defendants’ employees, officers, directors, or heirs. 

b. Loans of servicemembers for whom Defendants successfully proved the 

servicemember’s financial ability to repay loan did not change as a result 

of active duty status, pursuant to SCRA § 527(c). 

c. This Court, this Court’s direct family members, and this Court’s personnel. 

57. This class action satisfies all requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and 

(b)(3), including, but not limited to numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance. 

58. Numerosity: Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the proposed class ‘‘is 

so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.’’ At present, the 

United States of America has approximately 1.4 million active-duty servicemembers. Defendants comprise some of the largest lending institutions in the 

country. Class members will number in at least the thousands. Detailed information on the Class can be ascertained through the review of account records 

maintained by Defendants, publicly available records, and appropriate discovery. Joinder of the numerous active-duty servicemembers who carry obligations or liabilities to Defendants and who Defendants violated their SCRA 

rights would be impracticable. 

59. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist 

as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions affecting 

solely individual class members. These questions include: 

• Whether Defendants are improperly processing military service notices received from active-duty servicemembers; 

• Whether Defendants are failing to reduce to at least 6 percent the annual 

rates on servicemembers’ interest-bearing obligations or liabilities, or failing to forgive the correct amounts of such excess interest; 

• Whether Defendants are improperly compounding interest on servicemembers’ loan obligations; 

• Whether the SCRA allows compounding of interest; 

• Whether Defendants are improperly requiring servicemembers’ loans to be 

put into forbearance status as a condition of receiving the SCRA interest 

rate reduction; 

• Whether Defendants are improperly capitalizing excess interest on accounts 

that it places into forbearance; and, 

• Whether Defendants’ capitalization of unpaid accrued interest from the 

mandatory forbearance period violates the spirit or letter of the SCRA. 

60. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff, the proposed Class Representative, are 

typical of the class claims, in that (a) Plaintiff incurred an obligation or liability to Defendants bearing interest in excess of 6 percent per year; (b) Plaintiff 

requested in writing that her rate be reduced to at least 6 percent per year 

pursuant to the SCRA; (c) Defendants instead put her loan into mandatory 

forbearance status, failed to reduce her interest rate to at least 6 percent per 

year, and instead overcharged interest (or did not credit back the correct 

amount of interest); and (d) Defendants capitalized unpaid accrued interest at 

the end of the mandatory forbearance period. 

61. Adequacy: Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), Plaintiff ‘‘will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class.’’ Plaintiff has no adverse or conflicting interests to the proposed class members. She has retained counsel 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

competent and experienced in complex class action litigation who possess the 

necessary financial resources to adequately and vigorously litigate this class 

action. 

62. Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available methods for the 

fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members 

is impractical. Prosecution of separate actions by individual class members 

would create an inherent risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, with 

the concomitant risk of the establishment of incompatible and conflicting 

standards of conduct for Defendant. Furthermore, the damages suffered by individual class members are relatively small, such that the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it impossible for members of the class to 

individually redress the wrongs done to them. In addition, servicemen and 

women who are class members should not be devoting time, energy and attention away from service to this Country in being bogged down by tracking the 

amount of interest charged on their accounts while on active duty, or by litigation of same. Moreover, due to the vastly unequal market power between 

the parties, and the fact that many class members are in ongoing lending relationships with Defendants, a class action may be the only way, as a practical matter, that their claims will be adjudicated. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that would make a class action in this case unmanageable. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

63. Plaintiff re-alleges all other paragraphs of this Complaint. 

64. Defendants’ policy requiring class members’ loans to be put into forbearance 

status is an illegal pre-condition to the servicemembers receiving the SCRA 

interest rate reduction. 

65. The SCRA does not allow such a pre-condition. 

66. As a result of the mandatory forbearance status, the servicemembers have additional burdens placed on them if they wish to continue making payments 

on their loans while on active duty. 

67. These additional burdens include: (a) being denied access to the autopay option, through which the servicemember could have made payments in order 

to continue reducing principal during the active duty period, (b) the servicemember no longer receives monthly account statements in the mail while in 

forbearance, (c) both of which result in most active duty servicemembers not 

making payments while they are deployed because of the added effort they 

must commit to making a payment, (d) more active duty servicemembers having increased interest to pay at the end of their active duty period as a result 

of making no, or few, payments while they are deployed, and (e) higher likelihood of having a larger amount of interest capitalized and added to their principal at the end of their active duty when the forbearance status is lifted. 

68. Defendants’ mandatory forbearance policy should be declared an illegal precondition to receiving the benefits of the SCRA, and Defendants should be enjoined from continuing said policy. 

69. Defendant’s policy of compounding and/or capitalizing interest on the obligations of the Plaintiff and other sevicemembers entitled to the benefits of the 

SCRA is not allowed by the SCRA. 

70. Defendants’ interest compounding and/or capitalization should be declared illegal, and Defendants should be enjoined from doing so on those obligations 

protected by the SCRA. 

71. Defendants’ practice of capitalizing unpaid accrued interest into the servicemember’s principal loan balance when combined with the practice of mandatory forbearance is in violation of the spirit and letter of the SCRA and should 

be declared illegal. Furthermore, Defendants should be enjoined from engaging in such illegal practice. 

COUNT II 

CHARGING INTEREST IN EXCESS OF THE SIX PERCENT PER YEAR 

LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT 

72. Plaintiff re-alleges all other paragraphs of this Complaint. 

73. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 527(a)(1) provides that 

‘‘[a]n obligation or liability bearing interest at a rate in excess of 6 percent 

per year that is incurred by a servicemember, or the servicemember and the 

servicemember’s spouse jointly, before the servicemember enters military 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

service shall not bear interest at a rate in excess of 6 percent per year during 

the period of military service.’’ 

74. Ms. Olson’s private student loan is an ‘‘obligation or liability’’ which qualifies 

for an interest rate reduction under the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. § 527(a). 

75. Plaintiff made a written request for an interest rate reduction to Defendants, 

and enclosed a copy of the orders calling her to active duty. 

76. Despite written notice, Defendants nonetheless charged interest on Ms. 

Olson’s student loan in excess of 6 percent per year, in violation of the SCRA. 

77. Upon information and belief, when Defendants do decrease the interest rate 

to 6 percent sometime after the military service period has begun, the amount 

of interest credited back to the servicemember’s account (as required by the 

SCRA) is incorrect, resulting in an interest overcharge. 

78. The capitalization of interest raises the effective interest rate on the servicemember’s loan. 

79. When a servicemember requests the 6 percent per year cap per SCRA, Defendants place the servicemember’s loan into mandatory forbearance and then 

capitalize any unpaid interest that is accrued during the servicemember’s 

military service period. The mandatory forbearance and resulting capitalization of such interest violates the spirit and letter of the SCRA protections afforded to the servicemembers of this country. 

80. Servicemembers, including Ms. Olson, are damaged by the capitalized interest 

resulting from the mandatory forbearance, as well as the interest Defendants 

charge on that capitalized interest for the remainder of the life of the loan. 

COUNT III 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED 

81. Plaintiff re-alleges all other paragraphs of this Complaint. 

82. Defendants’ conduct alleged in this Complaint results in an unjust enrichment and gives rise to a claim for money had and received. Defendants have 

taken undue advantage of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. 

83. Defendants are indebted to the Plaintiff and the Class in a certain sum ‘‘for 

money had and received by the Defendant for the use of the Plaintiff.’’ 

84. Defendants have collected sums of money from Plaintiff and the Class members under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience it cannot 

retain, which in justice and fairness belongs to the Plaintiff and the Class. 

The excess interest above the amount allowed by the SCRA retained by Defendants is illegal and does not belong to Defendants. 

85. In an unjust enrichment claim, the emphasis is on the wrongdoer’s enrichment, not the victim’s loss. In particular, a person acting in conscious disregard of the rights of another should be required to disgorge all illegal 

amounts retained because disgorgement both benefits the injured parties and 

deters the perpetrator from committing the same unlawful actions again. 

86. As a result of Defendants’ actions, described above, they have unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class. 

87. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Class were deprived of money 

and suffered the loss alleged above. 

RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, respectfully requests the following relief from this Court: 

1. Certify this case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class as defined 

herein; 

2. Appoint Plaintiff Ms. Lyndsey M.D. Olson as class representative; 

3. Appoint the undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class; 

4. Grant judgment on Count I in favor of the Plaintiff and Members of the Class 

declaring Defendants’ policy of mandatory forbearance as a pre-condition of 

obtaining the lower SCRA interest is illegal, and enjoin Defendants from continuing to impose it as a mandatory policy. 

5. Grant judgment on Count I in favor of Plaintiff and Members of the Class 

declaring illegal Defendants’ practice of compounding interest on obligations 

protected by the SCRA and enjoin Defendants from continuing such practices. 

6. Grant judgment on Count I in favor of Plaintiff and Members of the Class 

declaring illegal Defendants’ practice of capitalizing interest on obligations 

protected by the SCRA in combination with their policy of mandatory forbearance, and enjoin Defendants from continuing such practices. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

7. Grant judgment on Count I in favor of Plaintiff and Members of the Class 

and enjoin Defendants from discontinuing their automatic payment service 

option when servicemembers exercise their rights to SCRA protections. 

8. Grant judgment on Count I in favor of Plaintiff and Members of the Class 

and enjoin Defendants from discontinuing their mailed monthly statements 

when servicemembers exercise their rights to SCRA protections. 

9. Grant judgment against Defendants on Count II in favor of the Plaintiff and 

Members of the Class finding that Defendants violated the SCRA and awarding damages in an amount to be determined; 

10. Grant judgment against Defendants on Count II in favor of the Plaintiff and 

Members of the Class and recast and recalculate Plaintiffs’ loans as if interest 

had not been capitalized at the end of the mandatory forbearance period. 

11. Grant judgment against Defendants on Count III for the amount in which Defendants were unjustly enriched by way of their illegal actions; 

12. Enter an injunction prohibiting Defendants from placing servicemembers’ 

loans into mandatory forbearance and then capitalizing unpaid accrued interest from the period of military service. 

13. Enter an injunction prohibiting Defendants from charging and collecting illegal interest in the future; 

14. Award the Class prejudgment interest at the applicable rate; 

15. Award the Class all direct and consequential damages allowed by law; 

16. Award the Plaintiff Class all appropriate equitable and injunctive relief; 

17. Award the Plaintiff Class their reasonable costs and attorney fees; and 

18. Grant any other further relief that the Court deems appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class demand a jury trial in this action for all claims 

so triable. 

Respectfully Submitted, .

Dated: January 11, 2011 Crowder Teske, P.L.L.P. 

—————————————————— 

William H. Crowder (MN # 0020102) 

Vildan A. Teske (MN # 0241404) 

Marisa C. Katz (MN # 0389709) 

222 South Ninth Street, Suite 3210 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 

Telephone: (612) 746–1558 

Fax: (651) 846–5339 

Richard J. Fuller (MN # 0032669) 

Attorney at Law 

4005 Fourth Street South, Suite 202 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 

Telephone: (612) 294–2600 

Fax: (612) 294–2640 

Martin A. Carlson (MN # No. 0299650) 

Law Offices of Martin A. Carlson, Ltd. 

247 Third Ave. S. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 

Telephone: (612) 359–0400 

Fax: (612) 341–0116 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LYNDSEY M.D. OLSON, 

AND THE CLASS VERIFICATION 

Lyndsey M.D. Olson being first duly sworn on oath, states that she has read this 

Complaint, that she understands the same, that the matters herein are true and 

accurate, and to those matters pled upon information and belief, they are accurate 

to the best of her information and belief. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

—————————————————— 

Lyndsey M.D. Olson 

Signed and sworn to before me 

this lll day of llllll, 2011. 

————————————————— 

Notary Public 

SCRA Protections Education 

Question 4: Does the Department of Defense work with financial institutions to 

educate them on the SCRA protections? 

Question 4(a): If yes, how? 

Answer: Yes, as noted below: 

The Department of Defense (the Department) has no statutory or regulatory responsibility for training the credit or banking industry or any other entities on the 

SCRA. The Department has no enforcement mechanisms in this area either. That 

responsibility lies with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 

Nevertheless, important informal ties are in place and significant efforts are made 

to reach out to the business and legal communities to inform them about the laws 

that impact servicemembers. 

The Office of Legal Policy has also reached out to industry and taught at seminars 

for the Association of Military Bankers and the Association of Defense Credit 

Unions. These seminars have focused on new developments in the SCRA and the 

Homeowner’s Assistance Program. Members of the Department of Defense’s Financial Readiness organization in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Military and Community Policy also regularly participate in these same seminars. 

The American Bankers Association has regularly invited the Director of Legal Policy to participate in a live Webcast on the SCRA. This same program has also featured presentations by a representative from Military Community and Family Policy 

who have discussed military payday lending restrictions and other programs impacting the financial wellbeing of servicemembers. 

It was the informal ties between the Department and the American Bankers’ Association that alerted the Department to the recent litigation involving JPMorgan 

Chase and allowed the Department to disseminate information about the lawsuit, 

including the JPMorgan Chase hotline for servicemembers, even before the story 

broke on national news. 

Question 4(b): Have any of these financial institutions ever included JPMorgan 

Chase? 

Answer: JPMorgan Chase had one registered listener for a September 2007 

Webcast that I presented through the American Bankers Association. 

Rowles Situation 

Question 5: What role did the Department of Defense play in the Rowles situation? 

Answer: The Department played no role in this private litigation, and was not 

aware of it until January 13, 2011. The Department has, however, been involved 

with passing along information through legal assistance and financial counselor 

channels concerning the efforts of JPMorgan Chase to establish a hotline number 

for its military customers. 

Foreclosure Statistics 

Question 6: Does the Department of Defense have any numbers of the families 

that face foreclosure issues? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

Answer: The Department of Defense does not have access to the numbers of 

servicemembers or their families facing foreclosure. However some data suggests 

trends. 

Despite what would seem to be aggravating factors of military life such as frequent moves, mobilizations and deployments, and fluctuating housing market conditions in areas where members might reside, recent statistical and anecdotal evidence does not show an increase in foreclosures or inability to make payments on 

primary residences: 

Financial Information 

Question 7: Is the Department of Defense open to simplifying military orders or 

adding an extra page in easy to read language for financial institutions? 

Answer: Yes, the Department would be open to looking to see how this might be 

done and to working with the Committee to explore possible legislative authority 

that would simplify the process for financial institutions. 

• The percentage of servicemembers responding to Department of Defense Status 

of Forces Assessment surveys from 1999 to 2010 who reported falling behind 

in their rent or mortgage in the past 12 months has consistently ranged from 

3 to 5 percent. 

• Military Services Personal Financial Managers have reported no significant increase in requests for foreclosure assistance. 

• Military One Source reports that foreclosures are not in the top five reasons for 

requesting financial counseling, although information on ‘‘home buying or renting/mortgages/refinancing’’ is #5. 

• The Department’s Personal Financial Counselors have reported that less than 

2 percent of servicemembers seeking direct support requested help with foreclosure. 

If indeed servicemembers are not suffering from foreclosure issues as acutely as 

might be expected based on nationwide trends, this might be explained in several 

ways. As of 2008, home ownership was at about 67 percent nationwide, but only 25– 

34 percent of servicemembers owned homes. Thus homeownership across the military is about half that of the general population. 

Also, the Homeowners’ Assistance Program (HAP) (42 USC § 3374) appropriated 

$555M in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to assist, 

among others, servicemembers relocating under permanent change of station (PCS) 

orders dated September 30, 2010, or earlier. Another $300 was appropriated as part 

of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization to supplement the HAP. As 

of February 23, 2011, the program has assisted 4,825 claimants (the vast majority 

being servicemembers with PCS orders) at a cost of $725M (some of this money will 

flow back into HAP when the houses purchased by the government are resold to 

third party buyers). Another 4,580 claims are being evaluated for payment. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

February 15, 2011 

Elizabeth Warren 

Assistant to the President and Special Advisor 

to the Secretary of the Treasury 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20220 

Dear Elizabeth: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing entitled ‘‘Allegations Regarding the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,’’ that took place on February 9, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on April 1, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Post-Hearing Questions for Holly Petraeus 

From the Honorable Bob Filner 

Allegations Regarding the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

February 9, 2011 

1. What actions will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take 

when a servicemember makes a complaint about possible SCRA violations? 

The CFPB will create a process to refer SCRA complaints to the agencies that are 

authorized to enforce that law, which are the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and, if the entity that is the subject of the complaint is a financial institution, 

the relevant prudential regulator. The CFPB will also create a system to inform the 

Department of Defense (DoD) of the complaint. Our policies for handling and referring SCRA complaints will continue to evolve as we work with other agencies to improve protections for servicemembers. 

2. What are some of the initiatives the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau has in place to provide financial education to servicemembers? 

The CFPB is still under construction and does not assume many of its powers 

until July 21, 2011. At this time we are focused on hiring staff and organizing the 

various divisions within the CFPB, one of which will be Consumer Education and 

Engagement. The Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA) will be part of that division. At the moment the OSA is engaging the military community, to hear their 

thoughts on what the most effective financial education would be, through a series 

of roundtables and meetings at various military installations. We are also meeting 

with the DoD to learn what they already have in place. We are authorized to enter 

into agreements with the DoD and will work with them to be sure that they are 

reaching troops at ‘‘teachable moments’’ with the best financial education possible. 

In addition, while we are working on building the Consumer Education and Engagement division, we have posted links on our Web site to some of the best consumer financial education resources, under Get Help Now (www.consumerfinance 

.gov/get-help-now/). 

3. When do you expect your agency to be fully functioning? 

The CFPB will assume many of its powers on July 21, 2011. We are doing everything we can—in a thoughtful, deliberate way—to ensure that we are in a position 

to assume and exercise those powers in a responsible manner and to execute a 

smooth transition and startup. Once it is fully operational, the CFPB will be able 

to offer unique resources that will be able to assist servicemembers—particularly in 

regard to financial education—and it will work closely with DoD, DOJ, and other 

agencies to ensure compliance with the SCRA. 

4. What relationship do you expect to have with the Justice Department 

regarding SCRA? 

We intend to work closely with the Civil Rights Division at the Department of 

Justice (DOJ). Although the DOJ enforces the statute, the CFPB can help raise 

awareness of the law and its protections, both within the military community and 

within the financial community. In fact, we have already met with DOJ personnel 

to discuss their procedures for enforcing the SCRA. As noted above, we also plan 

to refer consumer complaints that allege a violation of the SCRA to the DOJ as well 

as any appropriate prudential regulator. 

5. What role should the Department of Defense play in SCRA violations? 

The DoD has an important role to play, as its legal assistance attorneys (Judge 

Advocates or JAGs) are often the first to hear about SCRA violations. JAGs can and 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

should refer their clients to the DOJ and the U.S. attorneys who often handle the 

cases locally. DoD can also inform the OSA and DOJ about ways in which the law 

might be improved to better serve the military population. 

6. Do you believe that the [penalties for] SCRA violations should be 

strengthened? If yes, how? 

Whether the penalties or other remedies for SCRA violations should be increased 

is a question for Congress and legal experts. 

7. Do you believe that JPMorgan Chase is the only bank with SCRA violations? 

While there have been a number of financial companies subject to lawsuits or 

public investigations regarding alleged SCRA violations, it is not possible to anticipate the results of those proceedings. 

Æ 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with HEARING