Compliance Tip of the Day: Bank of America, Culture and Internal Controls
Corruption, Crime and Compliance : CFPB and OCC Hit Bank of America with $250 Million Penalty for Consumer Abuse Practices
Bank of America Tries Excuse They Often Scoff at in Fraud Suits Filed by DOJ, SEC
Weekly Brief: BoA Sued; SCOTUS Shortlists; Fund Fights Argentina
The opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Young-Allen v. Bank of America provides both hope for lenders frustrated by borrowers who delay inevitable foreclosure sales by requiring the lender to comply with every...more
An action by a Washington state borrower to enforce a request for rescission of a loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is analogous to an action to enforce a contract and must be brought within the Washington state...more
In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit begins to unravel the mystery of when a claim to enforce a rescission request under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) may be time-barred. An action by a Washington state borrower...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a circuit court split regarding how and when a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”) and the CFPB’s implementing...more
In a unanimous decision issued on January 13, the Supreme Court held that a borrower exercises its right to rescind under Section 1635 of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), simply by notifying its creditor of its intent to...more
The Truth-in-Lending Act (“Act”) was adopted in 1969. It has spawned dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of administrative rules and interpretations. Recently, the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to address the...more
Why it matters - In a victory for consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not require borrowers to file suit to rescind a mortgage loan transaction within the...more
Action Item: In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski, lenders should be aware that written notice provided by the borrower, within three years of the loan consummation, is sufficient to exercise...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. that borrowers exercising their right to rescind mortgages under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) only need to provide written notice to...more
Background of Notice versus Lawsuit Issue - The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as implemented by Regulation Z, provides borrowers with a powerful tool: the right to rescind certain mortgage loan transactions. This...more
In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al. (No. 13-684), the U.S. Supreme Court has eased the process by which a borrower may seek to walk away from his home mortgages, holding that the borrower, in order to avail himself...more
In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., decided January 13, 2015, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and clarified that borrowers need not file a complaint in order to invoke their right to rescind...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that borrowers may reserve and effect their right to rescission by simply notifying creditors of their intent to rescind a loan within three years after receiving...more
The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a borrower relying on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to rescind his mortgage loan need only mail written notice of his intent to his lender within three years of the...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that borrowers exercising their right to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act must provide written notice to their lender within the three-year rescission period but...more
Until today, courts were split over what steps borrowers must take to rescind a home loan. Some courts had ruled that a borrower simply had to send a rescission notice to his creditor within three years after taking out a...more
In Baker v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 5:13-CV-92-F, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9578 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2014), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held that even if a consumer timely...more