Skip to comments.U.S. justices agree to hear homeowner case against bank
Posted on 04/28/2014 10:45:45 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide what process struggling homeowners need to follow if they want to back out of mortgages issued when lenders fail to adhere to a federal disclosure law.
The court will weigh whether homeowners need to write a letter to their lender or file a lawsuit in order to benefit from a provision of the federal law, known as the Truth in Lending Act. The law allows consumers to rescind mortgages for up to three years after the agreement was made if the lender does not notify them of various details about the loan, including finance charges and rate of interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-684||8th Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2014|
Issue: Whether a borrower exercises his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, by notifying the creditor in writing within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or must instead file a lawsuit within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|Dec 6 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 6, 2014)|
|Jan 2 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 12, 2014.|
|Jan 23 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 14, 2014.|
|Mar 14 2014||Brief of respondents Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Apr 2 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 2 2014||Reply of petitioner Larry D. Jesinoski, and Cheryle Jesinoski filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 21 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 25, 2014.|
Banks, like most businesses, are prone from time to time to hire incompetent individuals. Their loss.
Sound like a bank the corrupt crook reid would be involved with while lining his pockets with money.
So if they recind, they would have to pay back at least the principal of the loan. Where are these folks gpoing to get that money.
IF the bank did wrong, they probably should forefeit the interest but the borrow still needs to make the bank whole for the money funded.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.