« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 13 NFP) | Main | Ind. Courts - Announcement from the Supreme Court »

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Non-Indiana 7th Circuit opinion today on Truth-in- Lending Act (TILA)

In Marr v. Bank of America (ED Wis), an 11-page opinion, Judge Wood writes:

In the world of the Truth-in- Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., it oftenseems that no detail is too insignificant to matter. We have called TILA “hypertechnical” in the past, see, e.g., Brown v. Payday Check Advance, Inc., 202 F.3d 987, 989 (7th Cir. 2000), and this case provides yet another opportunity to see this level of precision in operation. The case before us involves a borrower who alleges that he did not receive all of the documents to which he was entitled when he refinanced his mortgage. If he is correct, then he had not a measly three days, but a more generous three years in which to rescind the transaction. The district court ruled for the bank, but we conclude that the borrower presented enough evidence to defeat summary judgment, and so we reverse and remand for further proceedings. * * *

Marr left the closing agent’s office on February 23 with the loan documents in the folder that the title company had given him. He put that folder into his filing cabinet. He added additional loan documents to the folder later on, but he never removed anything from the folder. When he took the folder to his attorney’s office, he and the attorney discovered that there was only one copy of the Notice. If believed, this evidence is enough to rebut the presumption created by Marr’s acknowledgment that he received two copies of the Notice. We note, finally, that although the difference between one and two copies may seem to be an empty formality, Regulation Z demands two copies. This is not a situation in which there is any room for some kind of substantial compliance rule. Two copies means two copies, not one. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(b)(1). Marr is entitled to the opportunity to convince the trier of fact that he did not receive all that the Regulation promised him, and thus that he may proceed with his suit to rescind the loan. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 6, 2011 02:48 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions