Categories: Articles

United States Supreme Court Clarifies That Notice, as Opposed to Filing a Lawsuit, Is a Proper Method of Exercising TILA Rescission Rights

In an opinion dated January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, unanimously holding that borrowers may exercise their three-year right of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) simply by providing written notice to their lender.

The Court in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. held that the petitioners’ written notice to Countrywide of their election to exercise the right to rescind their loan was sufficient, resolving conflicting authority among federal circuit and district courts that interpret TILA as requiring a borrower to file a lawsuit within three years of loan consummation in order to exercise such rescission rights.

According to the Court’s opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, TILA explains in unequivocal terms that a borrower shall have the right to rescind a loan by notifying the creditor of his intention to do so.  According to Justice Scalia, “[this] language leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind. … The statute does not also require him to sue within three years.”

Interestingly, the Court’s opinion goes on to provide that, unlike the elements of common-law rescission which require a party to tender back what it received in order to be entitled to such relief, a borrower does not necessarily need to tender to a creditor funds received under the loan in order to effectuate its election to exercise its rescission rights under TILA.  In the words of the Court, “[t]o the extent [TILA] alters the traditional process for unwinding such a unilaterally rescinded transaction, this is simply a case in which statutory law modifies common-law practice.”

The full opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. can be found at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-684_ba7d.pdf.

Published by
John Schreiber

Recent Posts

The WiLaw Quarterly Newsletter

Newsletter Article Highlights: A Beginner’s Guide to Trademarks: Part One—Trademark Basics Wisconsin Expands Child and…

3 days ago

Employment LawScene Alert: FTC Bans Employee Non-Competes, but Legal Challenges Expected

The administrative agencies are having a busy week! In addition to the DOL issuing an…

1 week ago

Employment LawScene Alert: DOL Issues Final Overtime Rule with Significant Salary Threshold Increase

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay at 1.5…

1 week ago

A Beginner’s Guide to Trademarks: Part One—Trademark Basics

What is a Trademark? A trademark can be any mark representing words, phrases, symbols, designs,…

2 weeks ago

Employment LawScene Alert: Biden Proposed Budget Has Labor and Employment Signals

On March 11, 2024, President Biden released the Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal…

2 months ago

O’Neil Cannon Serves as Legal Advisor to Engendren Corporation in its Sale to Cummins Inc.

O’Neil Cannon advised Engendren Corporation in its recent sale to Cummins Inc., a global powertrain…

2 months ago