The enforcement record, case by case
SCRA Enforcement: Every DOJ Case We Could Verify
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is not a suggestion. Since 2011, the Justice Department has sued banks, auto lenders, landlords, towing companies, and state agencies over SCRA violations and collected hundreds of millions of dollars for servicemembers. This ledger lists 53 actions, what each defendant did, and what it paid, every entry transcribed from the Justice Department’s own record.
What SCRA enforcement looks like
Two engines drive this record. First, the Justice Department: under 50 U.S.C. § 4041 the Attorney General can sue any lender, landlord, or company engaged in a pattern or practice of SCRA violations, and can collect damages for servicemembers plus civil penalties. Most of the cases below started small, often with a single complaint routed through a base legal assistance office. The Santander and Wells Fargo repossession cases both began as referrals from the U.S. Army’s Legal Assistance Program about one servicemember’s car.
Second, servicemembers themselves: 50 U.S.C. § 4042 gives any person aggrieved by an SCRA violation a private right of action, with money damages, equitable relief, and, if you win, your costs and a reasonable attorney fee paid by the other side. Since 2019 the statute also protects your right to join a class action even when your contract demands individual arbitration, the exact issue the United States backed servicemembers on in the Citibank and American Express cases below.
The pattern across fifteen years is consistent: the violations concentrate where automated collection systems meet a protection the system was never configured to check, and the remedies run to refunds, credit repair, civil penalties, and court-supervised policy changes.
The record at a glance
- Over $311 million
- Foreclosure compensation for 2,413 servicemembers and co-borrowers under the National Mortgage Settlement SCRA review of the five largest mortgage servicers.
- $60 million
- The Sallie Mae student-loan settlement, the largest pure rate-cap case: about 60,000 servicemembers denied the 6% cap they had documented.
- $5,000 and up
- Enforcement also reaches single-servicemember cases: one towing company paid $5,000 for one auctioned car. No violation is too small to pursue.
6% rate cap violations 7 cases
Lenders that denied, shorted, delayed, or failed to backdate the 6% interest rate cap on pre-service debt (50 U.S.C. § 3937). This is the violation behind the two biggest consumer-lender settlements in the ledger.
| Defendant | What happened | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Express National Bank (Padao v. American Express, private class action) 2023 Our guide to this lender → | A private class action, not a DOJ settlement: a servicemember, on behalf of a class of cardholders, alleged American Express failed to apply the Section 3937 6% cap. On March 2, 2023 the United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing the SCRA guarantees the right to participate in a class action despite an individual-arbitration clause. | No settlement stated in the DOJ record; the entry documents the United States backing servicemembers’ right to press SCRA rate-cap claims as a class. | DOJ case page: Padao v. American Express National Bank (E.D.N.C.) |
| Citibank, N.A. (Espin v. Citibank, private class action) 2023 Our guide to this lender → | A private class action, not a DOJ settlement: four servicemembers with Citibank credit cards and other interest-bearing obligations alleged Citibank failed to apply the Section 3937 6% cap. The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing the SCRA lets servicemembers proceed as a class in federal court even when a contract demands individual arbitration. | On September 29, 2023, the court denied Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration, adopting the position the United States advocated. The underlying rate-cap claims continued in litigation; this record reflects the arbitration ruling only. | DOJ case page: Espin v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D.N.C.) |
| BayPort Credit Union 2022 | The DOJ alleged the credit union failed to cap servicemembers’ interest rates on pre-service loans at 6% and also repossessed servicemembers’ vehicles without the required court orders. | Consent order (March 18, 2022): $69,443.10 to 24 servicemembers, a $40,000 civil penalty, and changes to BayPort’s SCRA rate-benefit and repossession policies plus employee training. | DOJ case page: United States v. BayPort Credit Union (E.D. Va.) |
| Westlake Services, LLC and Wilshire Commercial Capital 2022 Our guide to this lender → | An addendum to Westlake’s 2017 repossession settlement. The DOJ alleged Westlake also violated Section 3937 by failing to backdate rate-cap benefits to the date servicemembers’ orders were issued and by improperly delaying approval of rate-benefit requests. | Settlement addendum (September 27, 2022): $185,460 to 250 servicemembers who were not backdated or who waited more than 60 days, an additional $40,000 civil penalty, and revised SCRA policies, procedures, and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. Westlake Services, LLC (C.D. Cal.) |
| Conn Credit I, LP 2020 to 2021 | The DOJ alleged a pattern or practice of failing to lower the interest rate on consumer retail installment contracts to 6% for at least 184 SCRA-protected servicemembers. | Consent order (entered January 29, 2021): refund all overcharged interest plus an additional $500 to each servicemember, a $50,000 civil penalty, and an independent consultant hired to identify every affected servicemember, over a three-year term. | DOJ case page: United States v. Conn Credit I, LP (S.D. Tex.) |
| Sallie Mae (Navient Solutions, Navient DE Corporation, Sallie Mae Bank) 2014 Our guide to this lender → | The federal government’s first SCRA lawsuit against student loan owners and servicers. The DOJ alleged a nationwide pattern, dating back to 2005, of failing to give servicemembers the 6% rate cap on student loans, plus improper default judgments. The settlement covered the entire Sallie Mae serviced portfolio: private loans, Direct Loans, and FFEL loans. | $60 million in compensation, with about 60,000 servicemembers estimated to receive payments, plus a $55,000 civil penalty. Sallie Mae also had to ask all three credit bureaus to delete negative entries caused by the overcharges and improper judgments, and to stand up a streamlined SCRA intake process. | DOJ press release (May 13, 2014) |
| Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. 2012 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged that Capital One violated the SCRA across a range of conduct: improper denials of the 6% interest rate on credit cards and car loans, insufficient 6% benefits once granted, wrongful foreclosures, improper vehicle repossessions, and wrongful court judgments. The consent order covered accounts dating back to July 15, 2006 and required Capital One to treat a 6% request on one account as a request on every account it or its affiliates held. | Approximately $12 million: about $7 million in damages (at least $125,000 plus lost equity per unlawful foreclosure, at least $10,000 plus lost equity per unlawful repossession) and a $5 million fund for servicemembers shorted on rate-cap benefits, with any remainder donated to servicemember charities. Independent audits could add more. | DOJ press release (July 26, 2012) |
Illegal vehicle repossessions 10 cases
Auto lenders and credit unions that repossessed servicemembers’ vehicles without the court order § 3952 requires on pre-service loans. The recurring pattern: no military-status check before the tow truck was sent.
| Defendant | What happened | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Financial 2022 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged GM Financial illegally repossessed 71 servicemembers’ vehicles and improperly denied or mishandled more than 1,000 vehicle lease termination requests from servicemembers with qualifying orders. | Amended consent order (entered October 4, 2022): $3,534,171 to the affected servicemembers, a $65,480 civil penalty, credit repair, SCRA training, and SCRA-compliant policies and procedures. | DOJ case page: United States v. AmeriCredit Financial Services (N.D. Tex.) |
| Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. 2019 | The DOJ alleged a pattern or practice of repossessing vehicles owned by 113 protected servicemembers without the required court orders (Section 3952), and of failing to refund lease amounts paid in advance as capitalized cost reduction to servicemembers who lawfully terminated leases early on military orders (Section 3955). | Settlement (August 1, 2019): $2,937,971 in damages to servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty, $3 million in total, plus new policies and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. (M.D. Tenn.) |
| California Auto Finance and 3rd Generation, Inc. 2018 to 2019 | The DOJ alleged that a subprime auto lender in Orange County, California repossessed protected servicemembers’ motor vehicles without obtaining the necessary court orders. | Consent decree (filed March 6, 2019): new repossession policies, $30,000 to one servicemember, and a $50,000 civil penalty. | DOJ case page: United States v. California Auto Finance (C.D. Cal.) |
| Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union 2018 | The DOJ alleged the credit union repossessed protected servicemembers’ motor vehicles without obtaining the necessary court orders. | Settlement (November 2, 2018): $10,000 to each of six servicemembers whose vehicles were unlawfully repossessed, $5,000 to one whose vehicle was returned within 24 hours, SCRA training, complaint reporting to the United States, and a $30,000 civil penalty. | DOJ case page: United States v. Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union (S.D.N.Y.) |
| CitiFinancial Credit Co. 2017 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged Citi repossessed 164 automobiles from protected servicemembers between 2007 and 2010 without first obtaining court orders, in violation of Section 3952. | Settlement (September 18, 2017): $907,000 in compensation to the servicemembers whose cars were illegally repossessed, plus removal of the repossessions from their credit reports. | DOJ case page: United States v. CitiFinancial Credit Co. (N.D. Tex.) |
| Westlake Services, LLC and Wilshire Commercial Capital 2017 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged that from 2011 to 2016, subprime auto lender Westlake and its subsidiary Wilshire repossessed 70 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without first obtaining court orders, violating Sections 3952 and 3953. | Settlement (September 27, 2017): $700,000 in compensation to the affected servicemembers, credit repair for all of them, a $60,788 civil penalty, and new SCRA policies and procedures. A 2022 addendum addressed separate rate-cap violations (listed in this ledger as its own entry). | DOJ case page: United States v. Westlake Services, LLC (C.D. Cal.) |
| COPOCO Community Credit Union 2016 to 2017 | The DOJ alleged the credit union repossessed protected servicemembers’ motor vehicles without the necessary court orders. COPOCO fought the case; the court denied its motion to dismiss in January 2017 before the parties settled. | Settlement (July 6, 2017): $10,000 to each of three servicemembers whose vehicles were unlawfully repossessed, $7,500 to one who faced an unlawful repossession but got the vehicle back, DOJ-approved SCRA policies, compliance reporting, and a $5,000 civil penalty. | DOJ case page: United States v. COPOCO Community Credit Union (E.D. Mich.) |
| HSBC Auto Finance 2016 | The DOJ alleged HSBC was responsible for the repossession of 75 automobiles from protected servicemembers between 2008 and 2010 without obtaining court orders, in violation of Section 3952. | Consent order (entered August 18, 2016): $434,500 in compensation to the victims of the illegal repossessions. | DOJ case page: United States v. HSBC Auto Finance (N.D. Ill.) |
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services 2016 to 2017 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged Wells Fargo repossessed 413 cars owned by protected servicemembers without court orders between January 1, 2008 and July 1, 2015. The investigation began after the U.S. Army’s Legal Assistance Program reported the repossession of a National Guardsman’s car while he prepared to deploy to Afghanistan; Wells Fargo then sold it at auction and pursued a deficiency balance of over $10,000. | Over $4.1 million (September 2016): $10,000 per servicemember plus lost equity with interest, credit repair, and a $60,000 civil penalty. In November 2017 the DOJ announced an additional $5.4 million for roughly 450 more servicemembers found under the same settlement, bringing the total to $10,183,950 for more than 860 servicemembers. | DOJ press release (November 14, 2017) |
| Santander Consumer USA Inc. 2015 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged Santander conducted 760 repossessions of SCRA-protected servicemembers’ vehicles without court orders, and collected fees on 352 more unlawful repossessions conducted by lenders whose loans Santander later acquired: 1,112 vehicles in all between January 2008 and February 2013. The case began with a referral from the U.S. Army’s Legal Assistance Program. | At least $9.35 million, the largest SCRA repossession settlement at the time: $10,000 plus lost equity with interest to each of the 760, $5,000 to each of the 352, credit repair for everyone affected, and mandatory Defense Department database checks before any future repossession. | DOJ press release (February 25, 2015) |
Wrongful foreclosures 5 cases
Mortgage servicers that foreclosed on servicemembers without the court order § 3953 requires, including the National Mortgage Settlement SCRA review that produced the largest compensation total in SCRA history.
| Defendant | What happened | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| PHH Mortgage Corp. 2019 | The DOJ alleged that PHH, one of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers, foreclosed on homes owned by six servicemembers without the court orders Section 3953 requires. | Settlement (February 6, 2019): $750,000 in damages, $125,000 per servicemember, plus ongoing monitoring for SCRA compliance. | DOJ case page: United States v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (D.N.J.) |
| Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. 2017 to 2018 | The DOJ alleged that a company providing foreclosure services to mortgage lenders across the Western United States foreclosed on 28 homes owned by protected servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. | Settlement (September 26, 2018): up to $750,000 to the aggrieved servicemembers. Northwest Trustee had gone out of business and was in state receivership when the agreement was reached. | DOJ case page: United States v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (W.D. Wash.) |
| JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, GMAC Mortgage (Ally), and Bank of America (National Mortgage Settlement SCRA review) 2015 | The SCRA portion of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement plus the earlier Bank of America settlement. DOJ-supervised audits of the five largest mortgage servicers identified foreclosures between January 1, 2006 and April 4, 2012 that were conducted non-judicially against protected servicemembers, or completed through default judgments without the required military-status affidavit. | By September 30, 2015, a total of 2,413 servicemembers and their co-borrowers were eligible for over $311 million. Under the NMS terms, identified servicemembers received $125,000 each, plus any lost equity in the property with interest. | DOJ press release (September 30, 2015) |
| BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (Countrywide), a Bank of America subsidiary 2011 to 2013 Our guide to this lender → | The DOJ alleged Countrywide foreclosed on approximately 160 servicemembers between January 2006 and May 2009 without the court orders the SCRA requires, and did not consistently check borrowers’ military status before foreclosing. The settlement also obligated Bank of America to compensate anyone wrongfully foreclosed from June 2009 through 2010, which the follow-up review found. | $20 million settlement (May 2011), which the DOJ’s April 2013 update grew to over $36.8 million for 297 servicemembers as the 2009 to 2010 review concluded: a minimum of $116,785 per servicemember plus compensation for lost equity with interest. | DOJ press release (April 4, 2013) |
| Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., a Morgan Stanley subsidiary 2011 to 2013 | Settled alongside the Countrywide case: the DOJ alleged Saxon foreclosed on approximately 17 servicemembers between January 2006 and June 2009 without court orders, and failed to consistently or accurately check military status before foreclosing. | $2.35 million settlement (May 2011); per the DOJ’s April 2013 update, Saxon was paying out over $2.5 million to 19 servicemembers, a minimum of $130,555.56 each plus compensation for lost equity with interest. | DOJ press release (April 4, 2013) |
Lease termination violations 13 cases
Landlords, property managers, and vehicle-lease companies that charged early termination fees, clawed back rent concessions, kept deposits, refused terminations, or withheld pre-paid lease refunds owed under § 3955.
| Defendant | What happened | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| McGowan Realty, LLC, d/b/a RedSail Property Management 2024 | The DOJ alleged a Hampton Roads property manager refused to honor a Navy Petty Officer First Class’s SCRA lease termination, charging him $3,408.55 in early termination fees and additional rent while wrongly insisting Virginia law imposed a 35-mile limit on the federal right. | Consent order (filed January 8, 2024): $10,225.65 to the Petty Officer, a $3,000 civil penalty, SCRA training, new policies, and an end to imposing the 35-mile limitation on SCRA terminations. | DOJ case page: United States v. McGowan Realty (RedSail) (E.D. Va.) |
| FPI Management, Inc. 2023 | The DOJ alleged the property management company required nine servicemembers exercising their SCRA right to terminate a residential lease to repay lease incentives they had received. | Consent order (entered June 14, 2023): $51,587 in total to the nine servicemembers, a $22,500 civil penalty, tenant-database repairs, new SCRA policies, and employee training. | DOJ case page: United States v. FPI Management, Inc. (E.D. Cal.) |
| JAG Management Company, LLC 2023 | The DOJ alleged the manager of more than twenty large apartment properties across several states demanded that at least nine servicemembers terminating leases early on qualifying orders repay rent concessions received at signing, in violation of Section 3955. | Consent order (entered October 4, 2023): $41,581.95 in compensation to the servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, new SCRA policies, and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. JAG Management Company LLC (D.N.J.) |
| Integrity Asset Management, LLC 2022 | The DOJ alleged a company managing roughly 55 apartment properties around El Paso, Texas charged unlawful fees to servicemembers who terminated residential leases early and denied other servicemembers’ termination requests. | Consent order (entered September 2, 2022): $45,325 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty, plus credit repair, SCRA training, and new policies. | DOJ case page: United States v. Integrity Asset Management, LLC (W.D. Tex.) |
| American Honda Finance Corporation 2021 | The DOJ alleged Honda failed to refund pre-paid lease amounts, capitalized cost reduction paid from vehicle trade-in value, to servicemembers who lawfully terminated their vehicle leases after receiving qualifying military orders. | Consent order (entered October 6, 2021): $1,585,803.89 to 714 servicemembers, a $64,715 civil penalty, changes to lease termination and rate-benefit policies, and employee training. | DOJ case page: United States v. American Honda Finance Corporation (C.D. Cal.) |
| Santander Consumer USA, Inc., d/b/a Chrysler Capital 2021 Our guide to this lender → | Santander’s second appearance in this ledger: the DOJ alleged Chrysler Capital unlawfully rejected ten qualified servicemembers’ requests to terminate their motor vehicle leases early under the SCRA. | Consent order (entered October 1, 2021): $94,282.62 in compensation for the ten servicemembers, a $40,000 civil penalty, and changes to procedures and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. Santander Consumer USA (N.D. Tex.) |
| Levenson (Massachusetts landlord) 2020 | The DOJ alleged a Brookline, Massachusetts landlord refused to return an overpayment of rent and delayed returning a servicemember’s security deposit after he properly terminated his lease under the SCRA. | Consent order (entered January 30, 2020): $3,000 in damages to the servicemember and his wife, a $500 civil penalty, and compliance reporting. | DOJ case page: United States v. Levenson (D. Mass.) |
| Western Rim Investors (The Estates and The Mansions at Briggs Ranch) 2020 | The DOJ alleged two San Antonio-area landlords engaged in a pattern or practice of charging early termination fees to servicemembers who terminated residential leases after receiving qualifying orders, and of denying other servicemembers’ termination requests. | Consent order (entered September 30, 2020): over $71,000 to 45 servicemembers and a $64,715 civil penalty, with a three-year term and SCRA-compliant policies required if the defendants re-enter the rental business. | DOJ case page: United States v. Western Rim Investors (W.D. Tex.) |
| BMW Financial Services 2018 | A pattern-or-practice case alleging BMW Financial Services failed to refund lease amounts paid in advance to servicemembers who terminated their motor vehicle leases early after receiving military orders. | Settlement (February 22, 2018): $2,165,518.84 to 492 servicemembers and $60,788 to the U.S. Treasury, plus changes to lease termination policies and employee training. | DOJ case page: United States v. BMW Financial Services (D.N.J.) |
| Daniel Belshaw (California landlord) 2018 | The DOJ alleged a landlord refused to return pet and key deposits to an Air Force Lieutenant who lawfully terminated his lease before move-in after receiving orders relocating him to Texas. | Settlement (April 11, 2018): $2,595 in damages to the servicemember, a $1,595 civil penalty, SCRA-compliant lease language, and compliance reporting. | DOJ case page: United States v. Belshaw (C.D. Cal.) |
| Twin Creek Apartments, LLC, d/b/a Pavilion at Twin Creek 2018 | The DOJ alleged a pattern or practice of imposing lease termination charges on 65 servicemembers who had properly terminated their residential leases under Section 3955. | Settlement (September 11, 2018): $75,615 in damages to 65 servicemembers, a $20,000 civil penalty, and new policies. | DOJ case page: United States v. Twin Creek Apartments, LLC (D. Neb.) |
| United Communities, LLC (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst housing) 2018 | The DOJ alleged the on-base military housing provider required 13 servicemembers who properly terminated leases under Section 3955, after PCS or deployment orders, to repay rent concessions they had received in prior months. | Settlement (September 27, 2018): $45,001.78 in damages to 13 servicemembers, a $17,500 civil penalty, and new policies and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. United Communities, LLC (D.N.J.) |
| Michele Crowe (Alabama landlord) 2017 | The DOJ alleged a landlord refused to return any portion of an Air Force Major’s security deposit after he lawfully terminated his lease early on military orders, and claimed property damages far beyond what could properly be charged. The matter came to DOJ by referral from Air Force legal assistance. | Settlement (June 16, 2017): $1,900 in total ($1,425 to the servicemember, $475 civil penalty), SCRA-compliant lease language, and compliance reporting. | DOJ case page: United States v. Crowe (M.D. Ala.) |
Improper default judgments 4 cases
Creditors and landlords that took court judgments against servicemembers without filing the military-status affidavit § 3931 requires, the safeguard that exists so nobody loses a case by default while deployed.
| Defendant | What happened | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billy Joe Goines, d/b/a Goines Towing & Recovery 2023 to 2024 | The DOJ alleged that since at least 2017, Goines disposed of servicemembers’ vehicles under court judgments obtained without filing proper military affidavits, the sworn statements the SCRA requires before a default judgment so courts know whether a defendant is serving. | Consent order (entered February 1, 2024): $66,805.06 in relief for the affected servicemembers, a $30,000 civil penalty, one stored vehicle returned to its owner, storage fees forgiven for certain servicemembers, SCRA training, and new policies. | DOJ case page: United States v. Billy Joe Goines (E.D.N.C.) |
| Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments Property Owner, LLC, et al. 2022 | The DOJ alleged the owners of two Virginia apartment complexes obtained unlawful court judgments against military tenants at the Hideaway at Greenbrier in Chesapeake and Chase Arbor in Virginia Beach. | Consent order (entered September 14, 2022): $225,000 in total monetary relief ($162,971 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty), the judgments vacated, amounts collected under them reimbursed, credit repair, SCRA training, and new policies. | DOJ case page: United States v. Chesapeake Coveside Lane Apartments (E.D. Va.) |
| New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority 2021 | The DOJ alleged the state agency obtained improper student loan default judgments against two active-duty servicemembers by filing court affidavits stating they were not in military service when they in fact were. | Consent decree (entered October 21, 2021): $15,000 in damages to each of the two servicemembers and a $20,000 civil penalty, $50,000 in total, plus policy changes to prevent future violations. | DOJ case page: United States v. New Jersey Higher Ed (D.N.J.) |
| PRG Real Estate Management and related entities 2019 | The DOJ alleged a property management company and its related partnerships obtained default judgments against servicemember tenants without filing the military-status affidavit Section 3931 requires, and separately imposed early termination fees on servicemembers who ended leases on military orders. | Settlement (March 15, 2019): up to $1,490,000 for 127 servicemembers hit with unlawful default judgments, $34,920 for 10 servicemembers charged unlawful termination fees, a $62,029 civil penalty, credit repair, policy changes, and compliance monitoring. | DOJ case page: United States v. PRG Real Estate Management (E.D. Va.) |
Towing, storage auctions, and license portability 14 cases
Towing companies, storage operators, and cities that auctioned servicemembers’ vehicles or stored belongings without a court order (§ 3958), plus the first enforcement of the SCRA’s professional-license portability rule.
| Defendant | What happened | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 42 Georgia state professional licensing boards 2026 | The DOJ alleged the boards failed to recognize the out-of-state professional licenses of servicemembers and military spouses relocating to Georgia on military orders, a right the SCRA has guaranteed since January 2023. The investigation found spouses locked out of their professions after PCS moves; the DOJ estimates up to 5,000 people may be entitled to compensation. | Settlement (announced March 31, 2026), the first of its kind: up to $3 million in compensation for improperly denied or delayed license applications, new SCRA-compliant policies, and a streamlined application path for applicants already licensed in another state. | DOJ press release (March 31, 2026) |
| Morningstar Properties, LLC, d/b/a Morningstar Storage 2024 | A Section 3958 pattern-or-practice case: the DOJ alleged the manager and operator of a nationwide storage chain auctioned the property of at least three SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. | Consent order (entered November 1, 2024): $80,000 for one servicemember, $5,000 each for two more, a $40,000 civil penalty, and SCRA-compliant policies and procedures. | DOJ case page: United States v. Morningstar Properties (M.D. Fla.) |
| City of El Paso, United Road Towing, and Rod Robertson Enterprises 2023 to 2025 | The DOJ alleged the city and its towing contractors engaged in a pattern or practice of auctioning off at least 176 vehicles owned by protected servicemembers without the required court orders, in violation of Section 3958. The three defendants settled separately across 2025. | United Road Towing (June 30, 2025): a $57,935 settlement fund and a $24,980 civil penalty. City of El Paso (August 26, 2025): SCRA-compliant policies, training, and a $20,000 civil penalty. Rod Robertson Enterprises (October 30, 2025): a $140,000 settlement fund and a $20,000 civil penalty. | DOJ case page: United States v. City of El Paso, et al. (W.D. Tex.) |
| Texas state licensing agencies (Porteé v. Morath, private case) 2023 | The first case nationwide under the SCRA’s professional-license portability provision, brought privately by a military spouse whose out-of-state school counselor licenses Texas refused to recognize because she had not used them continuously for the two preceding years. The United States filed a Statement of Interest supporting her reading of the statute. | The court granted a preliminary injunction (July 21, 2023) and then final judgment for the plaintiff (November 20, 2023), holding her licenses covered under the SCRA. | DOJ case page: Porteé v. Morath (W.D. Tex.) |
| Todisco Services, Inc., d/b/a Todisco Towing 2023 | The DOJ alleged the Salem, Massachusetts towing company illegally auctioned off a vehicle belonging to an Air Force Staff Sergeant who was deployed to Qatar. | Consent order (entered December 8, 2023): $5,000 in compensation to the servicemember, a $1,000 civil penalty, new policies, and training requirements. | DOJ case page: United States v. Todisco Services, Inc. (D. Mass.) |
| Steve’s Towing, Inc. 2022 to 2023 | The DOJ alleged the Virginia Beach towing company auctioned off vehicles belonging to at least seven servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders; some vehicles were towed from a military base while their owners were deployed overseas. | Consent order (entered April 17, 2023): $90,000 in total monetary relief ($67,500 in damages to identified servicemembers, up to $12,500 for as-yet unidentified servicemembers, and a $10,000 civil penalty), plus new policies. | DOJ case page: United States v. Steve’s Towing, Inc. (E.D. Va.) |
| Black and White Garage, Inc., d/b/a Black and White Towing 2021 | The DOJ alleged the towing company illegally auctioned off a vehicle belonging to an active-duty U.S. Marine without a court order. | Consent order (entered August 9, 2021): $22,000 in compensation to the Marine, a $5,000 civil penalty, new policies, and training requirements. | DOJ case page: United States v. Black and White Garage, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) |
| ASAP Towing & Storage Company 2020 | The DOJ alleged ASAP engaged in a pattern or practice of auctioning, selling, or otherwise disposing of 33 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. | Consent order (entered October 15, 2020): $99,500 to the servicemembers and a $20,000 civil penalty, with a five-year term requiring VIN checks against public databases for military status before any auction. | DOJ case page: United States v. ASAP Towing & Storage Company (M.D. Fla.) |
| City of San Antonio 2020 | The DOJ alleged the city engaged in a pattern or practice of auctioning, selling, or otherwise disposing of vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without court orders. | Consent order (entered September 17, 2020): $29,000 to an Air Force Staff Sergeant, $18,000 to an Army Specialist, a $150,000 settlement fund for other servicemembers, and a $62,029 civil penalty, $259,000 in total, plus policy changes and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. City of San Antonio (W.D. Tex.) |
| PRTaylor LLC, d/b/a Father & Son Moving & Storage 2020 to 2021 | A Section 3958 storage-lien case: the DOJ alleged the company auctioned the belongings of a deployed Air Force Technical Sergeant without a court order, including his military gear, a fallen cousin’s effects, a relative’s service medals, a handmade family dresser, and his photographs. | Consent order (entered November 2, 2021): $60,000 to the servicemember, a $5,000 civil penalty, annual SCRA training, SCRA safeguards written into its storage contracts, and compliance checks before enforcing any storage lien. | DOJ case page: United States v. Father & Son Moving & Storage (D. Mass.) |
| Target Recovery Towing 2020 | The DOJ alleged the defendants auctioned off, without a court order, a motor vehicle belonging to a Marine Corps Sergeant who was deployed to Japan, in violation of Section 3958. | Consent order (entered September 29, 2020): $17,500 to the servicemember, a $2,500 civil penalty, and new policies and procedures. | DOJ case page: United States v. Target Recovery Towing (M.D. Fla.) |
| United Tows, LLC 2020 to 2021 | The DOJ alleged the Dallas towing company auctioned, sold, or otherwise disposed of vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without obtaining court orders, in violation of Section 3958. | Consent decree (entered July 26, 2021): $40,000 in total to five servicemembers, a $10,000 civil penalty, new policies, and training. | DOJ case page: United States v. United Tows, LLC (N.D. Tex.) |
| Shur-Way Moving and Cartage 2019 | A storage-lien case under Section 3958: the DOJ alleged Shur-Way auctioned off the contents of an active-duty servicemember’s storage unit without a court order. | Consent decree (entered August 2, 2019): $20,000 in damages to the servicemember, a $10,000 civil penalty, and revised policies. | DOJ case page: United States v. Shur-Way Moving and Cartage (N.D. Ill.) |
| City and County of Honolulu and PM Autoworks (All Island Towing) 2018 | A towed-vehicle auction case: the DOJ alleged Honolulu and its contracted towing company auctioned or otherwise disposed of cars owned by protected servicemembers, some deployed, without first obtaining the required court orders. | Settlement (February 15, 2018): $55,857.95 to three servicemembers whose cars and personal effects were auctioned while they were deployed, a $150,000 fund for others whose rights may have been violated, a $60,788 civil penalty, and new SCRA-compliant procedures. | DOJ case page: United States v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.) |
What this record means for you
Read honestly, this ledger proves two things. Enforcement is real: the SCRA has teeth, the Justice Department uses them, and violations have produced refunds from $1,425 for one kept security deposit to $125,000 per wrongful foreclosure. And enforcement is slow: most of these cases resolved years after the violation, and none of them started by themselves. Every one began with a servicemember who documented the problem and put it in front of someone with authority.
So if a lender is ignoring your rate-cap request, a landlord is billing you for a lawful lease termination, or your car was repossessed without a court order, do not wait for a headline with your bank’s name on it. Your own remedy starts with your paperwork: written notice, orders attached, proof of delivery. Then escalate. Your installation legal assistance office is free and referred several of the cases above to the DOJ. You can report the violation to the Justice Department’s Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative and complain to the CFPB. And under § 4042 you can sue directly, with attorney fees shifted to the violator if you win; our guide to suing a lender that broke the SCRA walks through that path, and our directory of SCRA lawyers covers finding counsel who has done it before.
If you are here because your own lender appears in this ledger, start with the matching guide: the 6% rate cap hub covers every issuer we track, and the foreclosure and repossession guide explains the court-order rules these cases enforce. A lender with a consent order in its past usually runs a cleaner SCRA desk today, but the record says: get everything in writing anyway.
Methodology and scope
Every entry was transcribed from the U.S. Department of Justice’s published record and checked on July 11, 2026: the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative case index and its Civil Rights Division case pages for actions from 2016 onward, and DOJ Office of Public Affairs press releases for the earlier landmark settlements. Settlement amounts and consent-order terms are stated as the sources state them, including their own “at least” and “up to” hedges; we do not round, sum, or estimate.
The ledger includes DOJ lawsuits, consent orders, and settlement agreements under the SCRA, plus three private lawsuits in which the United States filed a Statement of Interest (marked as such; they are not settlements). It does not include bank-regulator actions (OCC, Federal Reserve, CFPB) except where a DOJ source describes them, private SCRA suits without DOJ involvement, or USERRA employment cases. A defendant’s presence here reflects allegations the defendant resolved by settlement or consent order unless the entry says otherwise; settlements are not judicial findings of liability. General information, not legal advice; read our editorial policy.