Consumer complaint received 2026-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
In the beginning of XX/XX/year>, approximately one year ago, Navy Federal Credit Union placed a garnishment hold in the amount of {$950.00} on my joint account in connection with a Virginia civil judgment ( Case No. XXXX ; Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

At the time the hold was placed, I, the named debtor, was unemployed and had no source of income. The account subject to the hold is an XXXX XXXX checking account, and the only deposits made into the account were from my husbands XXXX XXXX military pay. No funds deposited into this account originated from me. My husband is not a judgment debtor in this matter. 

The Garnishment Summons issued in this case carried an official return and hearing date of XX/XX/year>. Under Virginia law, this return date marks the legal conclusion of the garnishment proceeding unless further lawful enforcement action is taken. More than XXXX months have now elapsed since the expiration of the summons, and no subsequent Writ of XXXX XXXX, Order to Pay, or other enforcement order has been issued or served upon Navy Federal Credit Union. 

Despite the absence of any active court authority, NFCU continues to retain the {$950.00} under a garnishment hold. 

Legal Violations and Improper Retention Be advised that pursuant to the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Form DC 455 ), Navy Federal Credit Union was instructed not to continue withholding funds beyond the XX/XX/year> return and hearing date absent a specific Order to Pay issued by the court. While the initial restraint of a joint account was permissible, NFCUs continued retention of funds after the return date, particularly where the restrained balance represents the net contribution of a non debtor XXXX XXXX service member, constitutes a violation of XXXX  Code 6.2 606 and an improper banking practice inconsistent with applicable federal consumer protection standards. 

Refusal of Assistance and Circular Direction When I contacted Navy Federal Credit Union to request release of the expired hold, I was advised that NFCU would not take corrective action unless I obtained a release from the local court. I subsequently contacted the Virginia court, which confirmed that the case concluded on XX/XX/year>, that no further enforcement action is pending, and that the court could not provide any additional release documentation. 

The court directed me to the creditor, XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Resulting Harm and Double Recovery Risk NFCUs refusal to release the expired garnishment has created an impermissible double recovery scenario. Although XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed that it has not received the garnished funds and characterized NFCUs continued hold as extremely unusual, XXXX nevertheless advised that the matter could be resolved if I agreed to make a one time direct payment of the new balance of {$980.00} to them to settle the confusion. Meanwhile, NFCU continues to retain the {$950.00} without any active court authority, resulting in significant financial hardship and leaving non debtor military wages improperly frozen in limbo.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation