Rescission is not a Claim — No Lawsuit Necessary

To those who think that this a gotcha moment consider this: Your lack of understanding of civil court procedure is what is preventing you from seeing the obvious — claims are not granted relief unless they are litigated — no matter how “obvious” the outcome. Rescission is an event not a claim. It’s the contest of the rescission that is the claim. It is therefore the contest of rescission that must be litigated.

Rescission is not a claim. Rescission is an event. Either it happened or it didn’t. If the notice was sent, it happened. If the notice wasn’t sent then it didn’t happen.

If the rescission is contested it is still effective and the note and mortgage are still void. If anyone thinks the rescission was not sent under the right circumstances they must establish standing and sue to vacate the rescission — not just ignore it. SCOTUS specifically stated that there is no difference between a contested rescission or an uncontested one. They are both effective on mailing.

Those who take a contrary view are ignoring basic procedural law. Under their “theory” the fact that someone contests it is enough to require the borrower to prove a “claim.” That is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the statute and what was confirmed by a unanimous SCOTUS opinion in Jesinoski. There is no “claim” of rescission under the TILA rescission statute. There is only an event that either happened or didn’t happen.

Let us help you plan your rescission strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps). to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!


Since this is a jurisdictional matter it can be raised at any time. Assuming nobody has stepped in to plead and prove ownership of the debt, there is nobody with standing that can attack the rescission. Once the 20 days expires, and no court has extended the period during which the actual creditor could bring a claim, the “lender” duties require compliance no matter how wrongful they think the rescission notice was sent.

If the lender remains in noncompliance for more than a year, their right to claim tender of the amount due expires by the express terms of the TILA statute. So at that point the note is void, the mortgage is void, the loan contract is canceled and the right to receive the principal back is time barred.

The standing issue is the key. The moment that a rescission notice is dropped in US Mail the note and mortgage are void “by operation of law.” Any “holder” of the note or mortgage is no longer the holder of anything that is legally relevant. The note and mortgage don’t exist. Hence while some named party might have had standing to foreclose they no longer have standing to foreclose or contest the rescission unless they can plead and prove standing by establishing themselves as the owner of the debt.

Some people consider it a slam dunk against the borrower if the rescission notice is sent more than 3 years from presumed consummation — i.e., the date on the documents. But we all know that funding usually doesn’t occur until hours, days, weeks and sometimes months after the loan documents are signed. So consummation is a question of fact UNLESS the homeowner admits that consummation of a loan contract occurred on specific date more than three years before the notice of rescission.

Many people, including those who see rescission as I do (as SCOTUS does) believe that SCOTUS will ultimately carve out an exception to accommodate the three year limitation on rescission under TILA. I admit that is possible but here is why I think they won’t.

In order to establish a doctrine that a rescission is to be conclusively presumed to be beyond the three year limitation you need a statute, not common law, stating exactly that. The Courts lack the authority to invent a new law of evidence. While it may be “obvious” to some people that the rescission notice was sent more than 3 years after consummation, it remains a question of fact as to the exact moment of consummation — assuming there was any “consummation” with anyone in the chain upon which the present forecloser relies.

Proving the loan and the status of the “lender” would therefore be a requirement to establish that the rescission was sent beyond three years from consummation. Proving that requires showing the holy grail of foreclosure litigation that the banks have successfully hidden since the 1990’s — who paid who for what and when?

Could SCOTUS go the other way? Of course! There is no appeal from their decision. I’m more optimistic that eventually SCOTUS will rule consistently with the Jesinoski decision. That means that if anyone has a gripe about a rescission they must file a lawsuit, establish standing and then plead and prove their case to vacate the rescission.

8 Responses

  1. @james chappell ,

    We are talking about TILA rescission here ,, that is a federal law so it applies to all 50 states ,, it covers housing loans… Most/all states have state rescission laws that cover other types of contracts .. each state will be different.

  2. OK fine. Let’s say it is an event then. Let’s also assume the lender doesn’t agree that the event took place (i.e., that you have rescinded effectively). Then, the borrower has to go to court to try to enforce the rescission, right? It not, then what should the borrower do in your opinion?

  3. thanks Neil this is year 11 still in home they used over 8 law firms even Thompson Hine law firm. The judge told this firm to lie about the final decree. The lawyer lied . My point is the level of corruption is unbelievable. Here I am on tape on 4th appeal. I point to rescission under TILA. Please watch people and share this as judge never ask bank’s lawyer if they paid money at auction, I ask judge if she seen any proof they paid and the judge attacked me. Wow. Please share and watch. Thanks in advance.

  4. Can a rescission notice be sent on behalf of an approved modification?

  5. @Charles Cox: Good analysis and citations!

  6. The ONLY party with “standing” to challenge a TILA rescission is the statutorily defined “creditor” under 15 USC 1602(g) [party originally named as the “Lender” in the deed or mortgage]…lack of standing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

    Moreover, a TILA Rescission is NOT a “claim” or “cause of action” but an extra-judicial REMEDY! See, e.g. Haviz v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) 652 F.Supp.3d 1039, 1048; Briosos v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1018, 1025-1026 discuussing Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank 523 U.S. 410 at 417 [re, “right of rescission, not a claim for rescission”]; Nakash v, Superior Court (1987) 196 Cak,Aoo,3d 59, 69-70 [dismissing rescission claim because it is a remedy, not a cause of action]

  7. Does a Notice of Rescission ONLY apply to a mortgage or can it apply to other contracts; car loan?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: