Categories: Articles

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

Download PDF

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  In the words of the Court, “[t]o the extent [TILA] alters the traditional process for unwinding such a unilaterally rescinded transaction, this is simply a case in which statutory law modifies common-law practice.”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

Judge Blocks DOL Increase to Salary Thresholds for Exempt Workers

In April 2024, the Department of Labor announced a final rule, entitled Defining and Delimiting the…

3 hours ago

IRS Invalidates Discounts Used in an FLP Formed Shortly Before Death

The recent Tax Court case Estate of Anne Milner Fields v. Commissioner underscores the risks…

3 hours ago

What to Expect for Tax Policy in 2025 After Trump’s Election Victory

The recent election of Donald Trump as president signals potential changes to the U.S. tax…

5 days ago

Super Lawyers Recognizes 30 O’Neil Cannon Attorneys

Each year, Super Lawyers surveys the State of Wisconsin’s 15,000 attorneys and judges, seeking the State’s top…

5 days ago

O’Neil Cannon Ranked by Best Law Firms® in 2025

O’Neil Cannon has been recognized regionally in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked…

2 weeks ago

Steve Slawinski Published in State Bar’s Construction Blog

Construction lien waivers are an indispensable part of the traditional construction payment process, allowing parties…

2 weeks ago