Consumer complaint received 2026-06-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
Complaint Based on Newly Discovered Evidence I am submitting this complaint based on documentary evidence that I discovered after the CFPB closed my previous complaint. This evidence directly contradicts Navy Federal Credit Unions explanation and was not available for inclusion in my original complaint. This complaint concerns Navy Federal Credit Unions seizure of an amended federal income tax refund that belonged solely to XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is not a dispute over XXXX XXXX general contractual right to offset funds belonging to me. The issue is whether XXXX XXXX had the legal authority to seize funds belonging to another individual after its own records established that individual was no longer a joint owner of the receiving account. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX originally filed his XXXX federal income tax return through XXXX. At that time, the refund was properly deposited into my Navy Federal checking account because that account information was on file through XXXX processing bank. XXXX later filed an amended federal tax return ( XXXX XXXX ). He reasonably expected the amended refund to be mailed to him. Instead, XXXX processing bank ( XXXX ) reused the previously stored direct deposit information, causing XXXX amended refund to be electronically deposited into my Navy Federal account on XX/XX/XXXX. Immediately upon receipt of the deposit, Navy Federal withdrew virtually the entire amount and applied it toward debts owed solely by me. Newly Discovered Evidence After my previous CFPB complaint was closed, I located Navy Federals official XX/XX/XXXX account statement. That statement clearly identifies my checking account as having : Joint Owner ( s ) : NONE This evidence establishes that XXXX XXXX XXXX was not a joint owner of my account when his amended federal tax refund was deposited and seized. This evidence was not available when I submitted my prior complaint. IRS Documentation The IRS documents establish that the amended refund belonged exclusively to XXXX XXXX XXXX. Specifically : * The IRS XXXX notice is addressed only to XXXX XXXX XXXX. * The amended Form XXXX was filed solely under XXXX XXXX XXXX Social Security number. * My name does not appear anywhere on the amended return. * The IRS determined that XXXX XXXX XXXX was entitled to the amended refund. These documents establish that the refund belonged to XXXX XXXX XXXX and not to me. Contradiction in Navy Federals Position After the seizure, I contacted Navy Federal and was informed by representatives that the funds could be seized because XXXX had previously been a joint owner of my account. However, Navy Federals own XX/XX/XXXX statement establishes that there were no joint owners on the account when the refund was deposited. Later, in its response to my CFPB complaint, Navy Federal changed its explanation and simply stated that it exercised its right of offset against my account. Neither explanation addresses the central issue. The question is not whether Navy Federal may offset funds belonging to me. The question is whether Navy Federal had the legal authority to treat XXXX XXXX XXXX amended federal income tax refund as my property after its own records established he was no longer a joint owner of the account receiving the deposit. Relief Requested I respectfully request that the CFPB require Navy Federal Credit Union to answer the following questions : 1. What legal authority permitted Navy Federal to seize an amended federal income tax refund issued solely to XXXX XXXX XXXX? 2. Why does Navy Federals XX/XX/XXXX account statement identify Joint Owner ( s ) : NONE if the company contends XXXX prior ownership justified the seizure? 3. Why did Navy Federal fail to address the ownership of the deposited funds in its previous CFPB response? 4. If Navy Federal maintains that it lawfully seized XXXX XXXX XXXX refund, please identify the specific contractual provision, federal regulation, or state law that authorized it to apply funds belonging to XXXX XXXX XXXX toward debts owed solely by me. I respectfully request that the CFPB review this complaint as one based upon newly discovered evidence that was unavailable during the prior complaint process.

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