Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Consumer Protection – TILA — Regulation Z

Consumer Protection – TILA — Regulation Z

United States Court of Appeals

Civil

Consumer Protection – TILA — Regulation Z

Where a borrower claims he received only one copy of his notice of the right to rescind within 3 days, rather than two copies, summary judgment was improperly granted to the lender on the borrower’s TILA claim.

“Marr left the closing agent’s office on February 23 with the loan documents in the folder that the title company had given him. He put that folder into his filing cabinet. He added additional loan documents to the folder later on, but he never removed anything from the folder. When he took the folder to his attorney’s office, he and the attorney discovered that there was only one copy of the Notice. If believed, this evidence is enough to rebut the presumption created by Marr’s acknowledgment that he received two copies of the Notice. We note, finally, that although the difference between one and two copies may seem to be an empty formality, Regulation Z demands two copies. This is not a situation in which there is any room for some kind of substantial compliance rule. Two copies means two copies, not one. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(b)(1). Marr is entitled to the opportunity to convince the trier of fact that he did not receive all that the Regulation promised him, and thus that he may proceed with his suit to rescind the loan.”

Reversed and Remanded.

11-1424 Marr v. Bank of America, N.A.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Wood, J.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*