JERRY HOANG V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. | 9th Circuit - borrower has six years thereafter to file an action in court to rescind in Washington State based on that rescission notice to a lender if rejected, calculated in a way analogous to that State's most similar statute of limitations, and similarly as to other States...now controlling in every federal district court in the Ninth Circuit unless subsequently the Hoang panel decision is reconsidered and modified en banc.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

JERRY HOANG V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. | 9th Circuit – borrower has six years thereafter to file an action in court to rescind in Washington State based on that rescission notice to a lender if rejected, calculated in a way analogous to that State’s most similar statute of limitations, and similarly as to other States…now controlling in every federal district court in the Ninth Circuit unless subsequently the Hoang panel decision is reconsidered and modified en banc.

JERRY HOANG V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. | 9th Circuit – borrower has six years thereafter to file an action in court to rescind in Washington State based on that rescission notice to a lender if rejected, calculated in a way analogous to that State’s most similar statute of limitations, and similarly as to other States…now controlling in every federal district court in the Ninth Circuit unless subsequently the Hoang panel decision is reconsidered and modified en banc.

H/T Dubin Law Offices

The panel held that under Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015), borrowers may affect rescission of such a loan simply by notifying the creditor of their intent to rescind within the three-year period from the loan’s consummation date. The panel further held that because TILA did not include a statute of limitations outlining when an action to enforce such a rescission must be brought, courts must borrow the most analogous state law statute of limitations and apply that limitation period to TILA rescission enforcement claims. The panel held that in Washington, the state’s six-year contractstatute of limitations was the most analogous statute. The panel rejected the district court’s application of TILA’s one-year statute of limitations for legal damages claims. The panel also rejected the bank’s argument that Washington’s two-year catch-all statute of limitations should apply. Because the borrower brought this action within six years, the district court erred in dismissing the TILA claim as time barred.

17-35993_Documents(1) by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 9120 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

Archives