Third Circuit TILA rescission decision adopts CFPB position


The Third Circuit has now joined the Fourth Circuit in ruling that a lawsuit seeking rescission filed more than there years after loan consummation is timely as long as the borrower sent a written notice of rescission within the three-year period.

In its decision issued on February 5  in Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services, the Third Circuit rejected the lender’s argument that the borrowers’ lawsuit was untimely because it was not filed within three years of the loan closing date. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, the Third Circuit held that the borrowers had validly rescinded their mortgage loan by sending a notice of rescission to the lender within the three-year period. For more information on Sherzer, see our legal alert

As part of its amicus program, the CFPB  filed amicus briefs supporting the borrowers in Sherzer and three other similar cases. In Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC, et. al, the Fourth Circuit adopted the CFPB’s position which it advocated in an amicus brief filed in another Fourth Circuit case involving the same rescission issue. In Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA, the Tenth Circuit case in which the CFPB filed an amicus brief, the court rejected the CFPB’s position and ruled that notice alone within the three-year period was insufficient to validly exercise a right to rescind. The CFPB also filed an amicus brief in Sobieniak v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, which is still pending in the Eighth Circuit. Oral argument in Sobieniak was held on October 16, 2012.

The Third Circuit  attempted to reconcile its decision with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998), in which the Supreme Court held that §1635(f) of TILA “completely extinguishes” the right to rescind after the three-year period. However, Sherzer improperly transforms a “statute of repose” into something less than a statute of limitations, with an open-ended invitation for rescission suits to be filed into the future. This undermines the certainty contemplated by Congress in enacting §1635(f) to provide a bright-line rule—and cut-off—for rescission, and to avoid clouding title. The decision creates great uncertainty where there should be none and also conflicts with prior decisions of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits as well as a majority of the district courts to have decided the issue.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ballard Spahr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.