Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Pendleton (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) | T I L A . . . "Pendleton was clearly entitled to TILA disclosures.....the fact that she did not have any personal obligations on the underlying promissory note is immaterial...." | Vacated and remanded.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Pendleton (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) | T I L A . . . “Pendleton was clearly entitled to TILA disclosures…..the fact that she did not have any personal obligations on the underlying promissory note is immaterial….” | Vacated and remanded.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Pendleton (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) | T I L A . . . “Pendleton was clearly entitled to TILA disclosures…..the fact that she did not have any personal obligations on the underlying promissory note is immaterial….” | Vacated and remanded.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Pendleton (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

View original: From the court   |   Our backup

¶ 27 The Staff Commentary on this regulation further explains, “[I]f a security interest is taken

in A’s ownership interest in a house and that house is A’s principal dwelling, A is a consumer for

purposes of rescission, even if A is not liable, either primarily or secondarily, on the underlying

consumer credit transaction.” (Emphasis added.) 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, Supp. I, § 226.2(a)(11), Note 2

(2010).

¶ 28 Clearly, Regulation Z and the Staff Commentary support Pendleton’s position that she was

entitled to TILA disclosures, because she was a consumer whose ownership interest in her home

was subject to the mortgage. It makes no difference whether she was liable on the note, as long as

her principal dwelling was used as security for the loan, which it unquestionably was. …….

. . .

– 12 –

¶ 36 For the reasons stated above, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal of Pendleton’s

counterclaim and third-party complaint and its striking of Pendleton’s affirmative defenses. We

remand for further proceedings.

¶ 37 Vacated and remanded.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: (Referenced in above decision.)

Inline image 1

12 CFR Part 226, Supplement I to Part 226 – Official Staff Interpretations

2(a)(11) Consumer.

{Note}
2. Rescission rules. For purposes of rescission under §§ 226.15 and 226.23, a consumer includes any natural
person whose ownership interest in his or her principal dwelling is subject to the risk of loss. Thus, if a security
interest is taken in A’s ownership interest in a house and that house is A’s principal dwelling, A is a consumer
for purposes of rescission, even if A is not liable, either primarily or secondarily, on the underlying consumer
credit transaction. An ownership interest does not include, for example, leaseholds or inchoate rights, such as
dower.
_______________________________________________________


[PDF]

Financial Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Standard Bank and …

Sep 24, 2015 – On October 14, 2010, plaintiff, OneWest Bank N.A.. 1 filed a complaint
….. See 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, Supp. I, § 226.2(a)(11), Note 2 (2010). ¶ 24.

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8576 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives