Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “TILA”

9th Cir. Upholds Judgment for Deceptive Disclosures Against Online Lender

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an online payday lender’s “loan note” violated § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act because, although it was “technically accurate,” the lender’s online loan portal made it difficult to discern the loan terms and therefore likely to mislead consumers about the terms of the loan. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment and relief order in favor of the FTC. A copy of the opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Capital Management, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. The defendant owner controlled a series…

8th Cir. Rejects ‘Envelope Theory’ in TILA Rescission Action

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…

9th Cir. Holds No NBA Preemption for State Law on Escrow Accounts, TILA Escrow Account Rules Not Retroactive

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the National Bank Act (NBA) did not preempt California’s state escrow interest law, which requires financial institutions to pay at least 2 percent simple interest per annum on escrow account funds. In so ruling, the Court also held that the federal Truth in Lending Act provisions for escrow accounts, at 15 U.S.C. § 1639d, did not apply to loans originated before the 2013 effective date of the provisions. A copy of the opinion in Lusnak v. Bank of America is available at:  Link to Opinion. In July 2008, the…

7th Cir. Holds TILA Claim for Failing to Rescind After Notice Was Time Barred by 1-Year SOL

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that, following the confirmation of a foreclosure sale in Illinois, the only remedy available to a borrower under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was damages, and therefore the one-year limitation period under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) applied and his claims were barred despite the fact that he provided rescission notices within three years of the loan closing, and despite the fact that the parties engaged in back-and-forth communications after the demands were first sent. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the borrower’s claims by the trial court. A…

10th Cir. Rejects Action to Void Foreclosure Sale Based on Prior TILA Cancellation Demand

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that a borrowers’ federal court claim attempting to void a foreclosure sale based on a prior demand to cancel the loan under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) was barred by claim preclusion for failure to raise the issue in a prior state court action. A copy of the opinion in Pohl v. US Bank is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff borrowers refinanced the loan on their home in May 2007.  In 2009, the borrowers defaulted on their loan.  In March 2010, believing that their lender had…

8th Cir. Holds Borrower’s Affidavit Alone Is Insufficient to Rebut TILA’s Presumption of Delivery

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that two borrowers’ conclusory affidavits by themselves were insufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c), where the borrowers acknowledged in writing at the closing that they received the disclosures required under TILA. A copy of the opinion in Alan Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2010, before the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), the borrowers filed this action…

SCOTUS Rules State Credit Card Anti-Surcharge Law Regulates Speech, Not Conduct

The Supreme Court of the United States recently held that a state law penalizing merchants for charging a surcharge for credit card payments did not restrict the amount that a store could collect when a buyer paid by credit card (i.e., a regulation on conduct). Instead, the Court held that the state statute regulated how sellers may communicate their prices, and was therefore a regulation on speech subject to First Amendment scrutiny. As you may recall, in Dana’s R.R. Supply v. AG, 807 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a…

Calif. App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Res Judicata Did Not Bar TILA Action Based on Prior Contract Action

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, recently held the dismissal of a borrower’s breach of contract claim in a prior lawsuit did not bar a claim in a subsequent lawsuit for violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., even if the breach of contract and TILA claims were based on the same set of underlying facts, because the right to full disclosures under TILA was a distinct primary right from the common law rights in contract. However, although the Appellate Court determined that the dismissal based on the doctrines of res…

2nd Cir. Attempts to Clarify Spokeo as to Alleged Violations of Statutorily Required Procedures

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently rejected an interpretation of Spokeo that would preclude all violations of statutorily mandated procedures from qualifying as concrete injuries supporting standing. In so ruling, the Court held that some violations of statutorily mandated procedures might entail the concrete injury necessary for standing where Congress conferred the procedural right to protect a plaintiff’s concrete interests, and where the procedural violation presents a material “risk of real harm” to that underlying concrete interest. A copy of the opinion in Strubel v. Comenity Bank is available at:  Link to Opinion. As you may…

9th Cir. Holds Foreclosure Trustee Not FDCPA ‘Debt Collector’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trustee of a California deed of trust securing a real estate loan was not a “debt collector” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because the trustee was not attempting to collect money from the borrower. In so ruling, the Court held that “actions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure, such as sending the notice of default and notice of sale, are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.” The Court also vacated the dismissal of the borrower’s federal Truth…

4th Cir. Holds Foreclosure is FDCPA ‘Debt Collection,’ Mere Servicer Need Not Provide TILA Notice of Assignment of Loan

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently confirmed that a law firm and its employees, who pursued foreclosure on behalf of creditors, were acting as “debt collectors” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when they pursued foreclosure proceedings against a borrower. In so ruling, the Court also confirmed that a servicer that does not also own the mortgage loan does not have a duty to provide notice of the sale and assignment of a loan to itself under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) merely because it accepts the assignment of the deed…

6th Cir. Confirms No TILA Right to Cancel for Failure to Disclose Assignment of Loan

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit recently confirmed that a mortgagee’s alleged failure to notify borrowers of an assignment of the loan does not give rise to a right to cancel under the federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA). A copy of the opinion in Robertson v. US Bank, NA is available at:  Link to Opinion. A mortgagee initiated a foreclosure action, and the borrowers responded with a “notice of rescission” to the mortgagee and the mortgagee’s counsel, alleging that the mortgagee had violated the federal Truth in Lending Act and that the mortgagee lacked standing to foreclose.…