Cigi - I think the honorable thing to do would be to give me the earnest money. I won't refund it to the lady, but I will have a barbeque that you both can attend. There will be ribs, pork chops, country sausage, boudin, and maybe even some bratwurst. And plenty of beer. Then, after you've both eaten your fill and drank too much, you can both commiserate that neither one of you has the funds.

But hey, that's just my thoughts on this. Oh, and teh rest of you BOLers are invited as well!

Your question: Is she entitled to relief under the SCRA? As I read your fact situation, she entered into a contract before she was married and before her husband moved to active service. You also stated the she qualified for all products on her own merit.

Given those facts, it is my opinion that she is not entitled to relief. The servicemember (the person Congress intended to protect) is not a party to any agreements. Similarly, he is not liable on any of the obligations. Since he has no liability, she is not entitled to relief.

Folks, we haven't walked in this landlord's shoes. Consider this: if she/he were truly greedy, they could enforce the lease AND keep the earnest money. Instead, they ended the lease and kept the earnest money. This might be a reasonable compromise that avoids placing all the burden on the landlord or the newlyweds. Afterall, the landlord didn't arrange the marriage, why should the landlord be forced to absorb these costs?