Shur-Way SCRA Case: A Deployed Navy Officer's Stored Goods Auctioned

What happened

On July 29, 2019 the United States sued Shur-Way Moving and Cartage Co. Inc. and its president and owner, Doug Brzezinski, in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, alleging they were jointly and severally liable. The complaint describes a storage facility in Lake County, Illinois, with its principal place of business in Libertyville, that contracts with the Navy to store servicemembers' goods when they are transferred or deployed (complaint paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 9 and 11). Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. entered a consent order on August 2, 2019 (consent order page 11).

The servicemember was a Navy lieutenant junior grade on active duty since September 26, 2001. In 2014 she deployed to Bahrain and stayed on duty there throughout the events the complaint describes. In or around June 2014 her personal property was shipped to Shur-Way for storage under an agreement between them, and for the next two years the Navy paid Shur-Way's storage fees every month (paragraphs 12 to 14).

On or about July 23, 2016 Shur-Way sold her personal property at auction without a court order. The complaint lists a diamond engagement ring, a gold necklace, military commendation awards, military memorabilia and many household goods. She found out from a phone call by a Shur-Way representative while on active duty in Bahrain (paragraphs 15 and 16). The complaint charged a single violation of § 3958 that raised an issue of significant public importance; it did not allege a pattern or practice (paragraphs 20 and 21).

The law behind this: 50 U.S.C. § 3958

Enforcement of storage liens: read the statute , or read § 3958 in plain English, with its enforcement record .

Who was covered

Only the lieutenant junior grade. The order settled the United States' § 3958 claims about her and no others (consent order paragraph 28), and her release covered only her § 3958 claims against Shur-Way and its affiliates (Exhibit C). The injunction protected any servicemember's stored property during service and for 90 days after, and it bound both defendants and anyone acting in concert with them, contractors and vendors included (paragraph 7). The order was in effect for three years from entry, so it expired in August 2022 (paragraph 35).

What the settlement paid

• $20,000 in compensation to her. The defendants had ten days from the government's notice that her signed release had arrived to hand government counsel a certified check payable to her, with no set-off for any debt she owed and no refusal based on an earlier release or an arbitration agreement (consent order paragraphs 17 to 21). DOJ's case page calls it $20,000 in damages.
• If she reported any credit problem tied to the storage lien during the order's term, the defendants had to ask the credit bureaus they report to in writing to delete the trade lines, could not pursue any deficiency left on her storage contract, and had to indemnify her against any third party that did (paragraph 22).
• A $10,000 civil penalty to the Treasury; the order gives the deadline as "ten (120) calendar days" of the effective date, a word and a numeral that do not match (paragraph 23).
• Policies within 30 days, for United States review: before auctioning stored goods, review any military information received and search the DMDC by last name with a Social Security number or birth date; no lien enforcement against a customer in service or within 90 days after it without a court order; and, before auctioning the unit of a customer found not to be serving, confirm that the unit being prepared for sale matches the name searched. Default motions need a military affidavit with the DMDC report or orders attached, and any waiver must start at least 30 days ahead with the Exhibit A notice (paragraph 8). Annual training for staff involved in lien enforcement and complaint reports every three months (paragraphs 11, 12 and 25).

Why this case matters

Section 3958 is not only a towing law. Its definition of lien includes one for storage, repair or cleaning of a servicemember's property or effects, or for any other reason, and here it reached household goods held by a commercial storage facility, not a car. This facility stored servicemembers' goods under a contract with the Navy, and the Navy had been paying the monthly fees for two years. The order adds a check aimed at mistaken sales: a DMDC search on the right customer means nothing if a different unit is prepared for auction, so the unit must match the name searched (consent order paragraph 8(c)). Enforcing a lien on a servicemember's stored goods during service, or within 90 days after it, needs a court order first, and in that proceeding the court can stay it or adjust the obligation (§ 3958(a) and (b)).