In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a mortgage lender’s reliance upon the borrower’s representations concerning the amount of his future spousal support and rental income without proper verifiable documentation were insufficient to satisfy the “ability to repay” income verification requirements arising under the federal Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation (“Regulation Z”).
Posts tagged as “TILA”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on June 2 announced a settlement with a Tennessee-based company and its subsidiaries that provide short-term loans (payday or auto-title) for the lenders' conduct at all stages of their operations, including providing “deceptive finance charge disclosures … failing to refund overpayments ... and engaging in unfair debt collection practices.”
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court order dismissing a foreclosure counterclaim by two borrowers seeking rescission under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., holding that section 1640(e)’s one-year statute of limitation for legal damages applied to bar the borrower’s section 1635 equitable claim, when the borrowers demanded rescission within three years of closing but did not file suit within one year after the lender failed to respond.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a trustee borrower’s claims under the federal Truth-In-Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act seeking rescission of a loan obtained to effectuate repairs upon a property inhabited by the trust’s beneficiary.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that -- despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements -- the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the financial services defendants in an action to rescind the mortgage under the federal Truth in Lending Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff consumer did not have a right of rescission under TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., because he previously quitclaimed his interest in the property to his ex-wife, and his new loan to acquire the property from his ex-wife was a “residential mortgage transaction.” A copy of the opinion in Barnes v.…
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that where a plaintiff challenges the validity of a transaction as a whole and not specifically the arbitration agreement that is included as part of a transaction, the plaintiff must arbitrate their claims because an arbitration agreement is severable and enforceable, notwithstanding a plaintiff’s general claims about the invalidity of the transaction as a whole. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court was reversed and the trial court orders compelling arbitration were reinstated. A copy of the opinion in Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp. is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs each purchased cars…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a breach of contract claim in a putative class action involving short-term cash advance loans, finding that the contract at issue was ambiguous because it provided two inconsistent definitions of “annual percentage rate” that could not be reconciled. A copy of the opinion in Laskaris, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank is available at: Link to Opinion. The defendant bank created a short-term cash advance program for eligible customers who held checking accounts with the bank. Specifically, the bank would deposit loans up to $1,000 directly…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a tax payment agreement entered into pursuant to Virginia Code section 58.1-3018 was a consumer credit transaction subject to the federal Truth in Lending Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Court further ruled that the plaintiff had standing to assert his EFTA claim, because the claim was not merely for “a bare procedural violation,” but instead alleged “a substantive violation of the rights conferred by EFTA.” Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of the company’s motion to dismiss the TILA and EFTA claims. A copy…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that Washington’s six-year statute of limitations governing contracts instead of the Truth in Lending Act’s one-year statute of limitations applies to claims to enforce rescission under TILA, after a notice of right to cancel was timely submitted. The Ninth Circuit also held that the trial court should have given the borrowers leave to amend the complaint because the borrower’s rescission claim under TILA was not time barred, and amending the complaint would not be futile. A copy of the opinion in Hoang v. Bank of America is available at: Link…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff borrowers did not offer sufficient evidence to defeat the rebuttable presumption created by the signed acknowledgement that they received the required number of copies of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) notice of right to cancel disclosures. In so ruling, the Court noted that the plaintiff borrowers did not claim personal knowledge of the number of copies of the disclosure provided at closing, but instead relied on the so-called “envelope theory,” which the Court held was inadmissible hearsay. Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court granting…