Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / 09-2455 Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

09-2455 Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Consumer Protection

A misstatement on a mortgage must be material to entitle the borrower to rescission.

“As to the district court’s similar conclusion that the Bontes conceded the validity of U.S. Bank’s arguments by failing to respond, they have yet again provided precious little in the way of argument. The Bontes do assert in their brief that their response in the district court to U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss was not tantamount to waiver. Specifically, the Bontes claim that because they ‘opposed the lender’s motion for dismissal, and identified for the lower court the factual and legal basis for their claim for TILA rescission,’ their response ‘did not constitute a “waiver” by any stretch of the imagination.’ But they seem to have again missed the point: identifying the ‘factual and legal basis’ of their claim does little to save them from dismissal when U.S. Bank has painstakingly explained precisely why that factual basis, taken as true, does not in fact warrant the requested relief.”


09-2455 Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crocker, Mag. J., Rovner, J.

Full Text

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *