California Appellate Tracker

US Bank, N.A. v. Naifeh

July 26, 2016

When a home loan borrower defends a lender’s suit, based on a demand for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act, the lender’s lien is not automatically invalidated; instead, the court must decide whether correct TILA disclosures were given and whether the borrower should be required to tender back the borrowed sums before the lien is invalidated.

Borrower defaulted, then sent a TILA notice of rescission of his loan within 3 years after consummation of his home loan. After US Bank foreclosed, it sued to cancel a series of instruments borrower recorded against the property purporting to convey the property free and clear of the US Bank deed of trust. This decision holds that while, under Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2015) 135 S.Ct. 790, rescission is effective and beats the statute of limitations, when the lender sues and the borrower defends based on having rescinded the loan, the court is called upon first to decide whether the required TILA disclosures were properly given (in which case, the borrower has only 3 business days to rescind, so a notice of rescission sent two years or more later would be untimely and ineffective) and whether the statutory rescission procedure should be altered to require the borrower to tender payment before the lender’s lien is invalidated.

California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5 (Needham, J.); July 19, 2016; 2016 WL 3944575

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

US Bank, N.A. v. Naifeh

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson