JD SUPRA-

An action by a Washington state borrower to enforce a request for rescission of a loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is analogous to an action to enforce a contract and must be brought within the Washington state statute of limitations for such a contract claim, given that TILA itself does not provide a limitations period.  Hoang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2018 WL 6367268 (9th Cir. December 6, 2018).

To effect rescission of a loan under TILA, the borrower must notify the lender of her intent to rescind within three days, or if required disclosures are not given, three years of the loan’s consummation date; but the borrower need not bring a lawsuit to enforce its rescission request within that three-year period.  TILA does not specify when the borrower must bring the enforcement lawsuit.

So, to what limitations should a borrower, her lawyer, and the court look when the borrower has not brought the rescission suit within the three years?  “Without a statute of limitations in TILA, courts must first borrow the most analogous state law statute of limitations and apply that limitation period to TILA rescission enforcement claims.”  Id. at *1.  “Only when a state statute of limitations would ‘frustrate or significantly interfere with federal policies’ do we turn instead to federal law to supply the limitations period” to look for an analogous statute of limitations. Id. at *4.

[JDSUPRA]

Comments

comments