U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Borrowers May Rescind Residential Mortgage Loans by Written Notice

This was the light in the tunnel, homeowners’ hope against the massive corruption. Justice Scalia stood by the letter of the law and for this we should all be grateful. Rest in peace Your Honor – you will be missed.

Maine Republic Email Alert

COULD THE SUDDENESS OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SCALIA’S DEATH BE SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE LANDMARK SCOTUS RULING AGAINST MASSIVE FRAUDCLOSURES WRITTEN BY HIM?

By: Adam B. Brandon

The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) requires lenders to make certain disclosures to borrowers before the parties close on a residential mortgage.  TILA also affords borrowers the right to rescind a mortgage for any reason for three day after the transaction.  Furthermore, if a lender fails to make the disclosures that TILA requires, then the borrower may rescind the transaction within three years or until the sale of the secured property, whichever comes first.

On January 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant opinion that clarifies how a borrower may exercise the right to rescind.  Previously, many federal courts required a borrower seeking rescission to file a declaratory judgment action.  If the borrower failed to file suit within three years, the…

View original post 580 more words

3 thoughts on “U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Borrowers May Rescind Residential Mortgage Loans by Written Notice

  1. When will all this nonsensical interpretation of Jesinoski cease? Gary

    Gary Victor Dubin Dubin Law Offices Harbor Court, Suite 3100 55 Merchant Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

    gdubin@dubinlaw.net (808) 537-2300 (office) (808) 392-9191 (cellular) (808) 523-7733 (facsimile)

    Licensed in California and Hawaii

    >

  2. Scalia, et. al., were clear in Jesinoski that TILA says what it means, and means what it says. It isn’t surprising that Scalia drafted the opinion. His reputation was that of a constitutional strict constructionist (sometimes also referred to as “original intent”). In Jesinoski he applied that same legal philosophy of limited judicial interpretation to a make determination of the intent of the legislators that drafted TILA.

    Ed Vieira was interviewed several years ago discussing the differences between interpreting the constitution in original intent, or as a living document. At just seven minutes in length I think it worth the time to watch.

  3. YVANOVA v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION
    Case: S218973, Supreme Court of California

    Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2016-02-17
    Event Description: Notice of forthcoming opinion posted

    Notes: To be filed Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m

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