MORTGAGE FRAUD EXAMINERS PREDICTED TILA WIN IN SUPREME COURT

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans

Date Filed: January 13, 2015
Case #: 13-684
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-684_ba7d.pdf

Mortgage Fraud Examiners has argued and taught for years that the plain meaning of the TILA statute and Regulation Z was unambiguous that under the Truth In Lending Act a borrower only needs to give written notice to his lender within three years when the borrower chooses to rescind a loan; the borrower does not need to file a lawsuit.

In the case sub judice  the petitioners refinanced a home loan by borrowing money from Respondent. Three years to the date later, Petitioners mailed notice to Respondent of their intention to rescind the loan. Respondent responded and refused to accept rescission as valid. Four years and one day after the date of the loan, Petitioners then filed suit in federal court for damages and declaration of rescission. The District Court granted judgment on the pleadings to Respondent because Petitioners had not brought a lawsuit within three years of the consummation of the loan. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in a per curiam opinion.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case because it found the Eight Circuit erred in dismissing the complaint. The Court reasoned that the Truth In Lending Act required a borrower only to notify his lender of his intention of rescission within three years of the consummation of the loan, and because Petitioner did notify their lender within three years, they had satisfied the requirement of the statute.

By Storm

This post was written by .

Published .

Posted in: Uncategorized

8 Responses to “MORTGAGE FRAUD EXAMINERS PREDICTED TILA WIN IN SUPREME COURT”

  1. frdmfytr

    I see this question come up a lot. “Can I still rescind if I am past three years”? From my understanding of it, “consummation” means from the time everything is done proper, right?

    It is also my understanding that “full disclosure” is a requirement, correct? And if that’s the case, “full disclosure” is more than likely the one thing you will never get.. or at least “truthful” disclosure.

    I’m I close? I think the more confusing part is what the exact statues is for each issue it would fall under..

    Reply
    • Storm

      You would be incorrect.

      Reply
      • frdmfytr

        By all means .. please, allow me the correct information. That’s the only way to know the truth.

        Reply
      • frdmfytr

        just when it seems there’s no hope, the TILA looked like it was the only real hope left. Now to find out all these same people with the same sites are still feeding the same garbage.. if their not correct someone needs to speak up and correct them .. 6 years of useless information is too much

        Reply
        • Storm

          Sites like living lies and those that regurgitate Neil Garfield’s factual and legal misinformation are single handedly causing more homeowners to lose their homes than those that didn’t listen to their utter nonsense!

          Reply
    • Storm

      The law is three years from closing–PERIOD!

      Reply
  2. frdmfytr

    CFPB Amicus Brief (Rosenfeld v. HSBC):” If the court finds the consumer was entitled to rescind, it will order the procedures specified by 1635 and Reg. Z, or modify them as the case requires…Accordingly, if the court finds the consumer rescinded the transaction because she properly exercised a valid right to rescind under 1635, the lender must be ordered [by the court] to honor the rescission, even if the underlying right to rescind has expired.”

    You can clearly see why its confusing!

    Reply

Leave a Reply