Posted on Jan 11, 2021
Should a unit be liable for paying a large bill incurred by a no contact order?
1.2K
5
3
0
0
0
SM was moving residence in town, not on orders, and had rented a uhaul truck and in the middle of the move his wife had a breakdown, ended up with misunderstanding at gate that had SM taken in for domestic violence. An MPO was issued pending close of investigation. Uhaul truck sat untouched until day 12 of having truck. SM wife couldn't unload truck by herself and as a result incurred a $600 bill from uhaul to which he cannot afford. Since unit commander placed the no contact order can the unit help pay for said bill?
Moving
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
No. The unit shouldn't be held liable. That doesn't even make any sense. The SM or the SM wife need to coordinate someone to go unload the stuff in the truck. If she can't do it alone, she can find someone to help her.
That bill is on the SM and his wife.
That bill is on the SM and his wife.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Couple of issues I see here....
1. The MPO should not have been issued without a sworn written statement from the spouse. That being said, some Commanders can (and often do) issue in an abundance of caution to protect both parties (the one from potential abuse, the other from fraudulent allegations). Everything beyond that (such as moving, rental trucks, temporary lodging costs, etc) becomes a civil matter for civilian courts and is not the responsibility of the unit. The false allegation via sworn statement can (and should!) be used in any civil proceedings that might ensue.
2. Are we to believe neither person had at least one other person who could/would help them with unloading the truck? Did either party even ask for assistance? Unless the Commander issued a blanket "no contact" to the entire unit (which would be VERY difficult to justify), it doesn't speak well of the other members of the unit who are unwilling to assist a fellow member in need.
3. (and probably most importantly) The member signed a contract with UHaul for a designated period of time at a stated cost. Any excess costs due to late returns are 100% the responsibility of the renter. This is clearly defined in any rental contract (and I've had dozens of them over the years) and is a standard across the industry regardless of rental company. Again, assuming this relationship ends up in Family Court, the false allegation and incurred expenses can be entered into evidence for final judgement.
It sucks for your member who is stuck with an unexpected bill. This is one of many reasons we should be counseling our members on maintaining an emergency fund for just such events.
1. The MPO should not have been issued without a sworn written statement from the spouse. That being said, some Commanders can (and often do) issue in an abundance of caution to protect both parties (the one from potential abuse, the other from fraudulent allegations). Everything beyond that (such as moving, rental trucks, temporary lodging costs, etc) becomes a civil matter for civilian courts and is not the responsibility of the unit. The false allegation via sworn statement can (and should!) be used in any civil proceedings that might ensue.
2. Are we to believe neither person had at least one other person who could/would help them with unloading the truck? Did either party even ask for assistance? Unless the Commander issued a blanket "no contact" to the entire unit (which would be VERY difficult to justify), it doesn't speak well of the other members of the unit who are unwilling to assist a fellow member in need.
3. (and probably most importantly) The member signed a contract with UHaul for a designated period of time at a stated cost. Any excess costs due to late returns are 100% the responsibility of the renter. This is clearly defined in any rental contract (and I've had dozens of them over the years) and is a standard across the industry regardless of rental company. Again, assuming this relationship ends up in Family Court, the false allegation and incurred expenses can be entered into evidence for final judgement.
It sucks for your member who is stuck with an unexpected bill. This is one of many reasons we should be counseling our members on maintaining an emergency fund for just such events.
(1)
(0)
You state that "Should a unit be liable for paying a large bill incurred by a no contact order?" and also state "can the unit help pay for said bill? Which is correct? Does the unit want to help with the bill or not?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google