Facts: A homeowner obtains a mortgage subject to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Under TILA, the homeowner is entitled to rescind the mortgage for up to three years after the mortgage is consummated when the mortgage holder fails to satisfy TILA’s disclosure requirements. Exactly three years after the mortgage is consummated, the homeowner mails a letter to the mortgage holder indicating they are invoking their right to rescind the mortgage, alleging the mortgage holder did not make the proper disclosures. The mortgage holder does not acknowledge the rescission and denies their failure to make the requisite disclosure in conjunction with the mortgage.
Claim: The homeowner seeks a full rescission of the mortgage plus money losses, arguing that their invocation of the right to rescind the mortgage was timely since it was mailed on the final day of the three-year rescission period established in TILA.
Counterclaim: The mortgage holder seeks to void the homeowner’s right to rescind, claiming the written notice of rescission, although timely mailed, is invalid since the adequacy of the mortgage holder’s disclosures is in dispute and therefore the homeowner’s right to rescind first needs to be decided judicially.
Holding: The United States Supreme Court holds that the homeowner’s rescission is valid since it was mailed within the three-year rescission period established by TILA, and the disputed nature of the mortgage holder’s disclosure does not require judicial affirmation of the homeowner’s right to rescind. [Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2015) ___ US ___]
If you read the statute,completely,particularly,USC 1635b,you would realize that the lender only has 2 choices when presented with the letter of rescission. They can choose to rescind,or they can seek judicial guidance to determine “iF” the borrower has a valid right to rescind. They do no have the legal right to ignore,or deny a rescission . If they do,they go at their own peril,to which the penalties can be very harsh,under Tila. This law was enacted by congress in 1968 ,and revisited four times since,to protect consumers from (banksters) predatory lenders. All the Supreme Court did was clarify the law,that had been convoluted by circuit judges inf avor of bank protection.