Lea Krivinskas Shepard
Loyola University Chicago School of Law
North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 89, 2010
Abstract:
This Article explores a significant market-based threat to the Truth in Lending Act’s right of rescission, a remedy that attempts to deter lender overreaching and fraud during one of the most complex financial transactions of a borrower’s lifetime. The depressed housing market has substantially impaired many borrowers’ ability to fulfill their responsibilities in rescission’s unwinding process: restoring the lender to the status quo ante by repaying the net loan proceeds of the mortgage transaction.
When a consumer is unable to finance her tender obligation, non-bankruptcy judges’ overwhelming response has been to protect the lender and deny rescission to the borrower. This Article argues that these courts, to fulfill TILA’s consumer-protective function, must take a different approach. Non-bankruptcy courts, which handle the vast majority of TILA rescission actions, should use their equitable authority under TILA to modify borrowers’ repayment obligations by allowing borrowers to tender in installments, over a period of years, and at reasonable interest rates. This approach both averts foreclosures that harm borrowers, lenders, and neighborhoods and ensures that TILA’s consumer-protective mandate will remain viable even in a depressed housing market.
This Article also considers an important aspect of TILA’s rescission remedy that, while tacitly acknowledged by courts and commentators, has been insufficiently explored in the academic literature. There exists an uneasy tension between the goal of the Truth in Lending Act – informing consumers of the financial consequences of their mortgage loan transactions – and borrowers’ frequent use of TILA rescission: defending their homes from foreclosure actions that the lender’s disclosure violation may or may not have precipitated. The Article concludes that TILA rescission actions, albeit a blunt instrument in the consumer protection setting, must be preserved, particularly during periods of economic calamity, since it remains a singular source of borrower leverage in a legal and economic climate that remains generally inhospitable to homeowners.
Accepted Paper Series
© 2010-13 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
Related posts:
- In A Putative Class Action, The Third Circuit Holds That A Plaintiff Must Show Detrimental Reliance On Improper Loan Disclosure Statements To Obtain Actual Damages Under The Truth In Lending Act (TILA) Posted on February 1, 2010 by Sheppard Mullin By...
- CASE FILE California BANKRUPTCY In Re HUBBEL and PEREZ RELIEF FROM STAY DENIED TILA QUESTION N.D.Cal.-03506637146 TILA Rescission, BK Court questions validity of “Creditor’s” claims, BAP...
- TILA Statute of Limitations Source: Livinglies Editor’s Note: Judges are quick to jump on...
- BofA to start reducing mortgage principal – sources Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:09pm IST By David Lawder WASHINGTON...
- Mortgage Servicers: The TRUTH what they don't want you to know. Why do mortgage companies continue to buy defaulted loans where...














