Willamette Law Online

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted


ListPreviousNext


Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: April 28, 2014
Case #: 13-684
Court Below: 729 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 2013)
Full Text Opinion: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Jesinoski_v_Countrywide_Home_Loans_Inc_729_F3d_1092_8th_Cir_2013_

Contract Law: Whether notification within three years is sufficient to invoke the statutory right to rescind on a transaction under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), or whether a lawsuit must be filed within three years instead.

This dispute involves a home loan in the amount of $611,000. Petitioners consummated the loan and three years after mailed notice to the Respondents (lenders) asking to rescind the loan due to alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Respondents denied the request to rescind. Now, more than four years after consummating the loan, Petitioners sue Respondents to rescind the loan. The issue is whether mailing notice of rescission within three years of consummating a loan is sufficient to "exercise" the right to rescind a loan transaction in accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 1635(a) or, whether a party must file a lawsuit within the three year statutory period if the party wishes to rescind. Following precedent, the Eight Circuit held that a party seeking to rescind a loan transaction must file suit within three years of consummating the loan which confirmed the lower courts judgment on the pleadings in favor of Respondent.

Petitioners now appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Petitioners argue that the appellate courts are split on this decision and that the Supreme Court should decide this issue the way the Third, Forth, and Eleventh Circuits have, finding that notification is sufficient under the language of the TILA. Arguments by Petitioners to support this are the plain language of the statute as well as the purpose and intent for which the statute was written.