Posted in Foreclosure Defense

The Truth in Lending Act and Rescission: Lessons Learned by Lenders from Jesinoski v. Countrywide | The National Law Review

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski.  The financial industry had used the courts to rewrite the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for over two decades. Lenders did not feel they had any duty to respond to a rescission notice and lenders routinely ignored the rescission notices.  In fact, they did not feel they had a duty to follow any of the provisions of TILA.

But this was not TILA’s intention.  TILA was created as a consumer protection statute.  It was designed to level the playing field and allow consumers to be private attorney generals.  That put the consumer in the driver’s seat.  No wonder lenders successfully emasculated the statute for over two decades.

The Supreme Court put the teeth back in TILA and it’s scaring lenders because lenders do not like being accountable for their misdeeds.  Suck it up lenders and learn to play by the rules.

Here is the latest advice to lenders from the National Law Review:

The Supreme Court just made mortgage rescission a little bit easier for borrowers and scarier for lenders in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans. Under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601-1677 (“TILA”), mortgage lenders are required to disclose the rights of obligors and other material disclosures to borrowers. Borrowers have a right of rescission for three days from the transaction or until the disclosures are made, up to three years after the transaction. The borrower must give notice to the lender of his or her exercise of the right to rescind within those time periods.

Read more -> The Truth in Lending Act and Rescission: Lessons Learned by Lenders from Jesinoski v. Countrywide | The National Law Review.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Truth in Lending Act and Rescission: Lessons Learned by Lenders from Jesinoski v. Countrywide | The National Law Review

  1. I have a formula in mind for TILA rescission issues where the judge says the homeowner must “tender” the amount loaned. Let’s first add up all the payments made, the cost of any substantiated fixed improvements, factor in the amount inflated by the appraisal, add those figures together, factor the interest rate on those funds for all these years the banks have screwed you around – and subtract it from the face value of the note. Then, if there is a balance, sue the bank under deceptive business practices for that amount (X3), and attorney’s fees and costs.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s