NOTE: BILL PAATALO is an experienced private investigator and forensic analyst. Taking my material to heart and despite being ridiculed by bank lawyers and even some foreclosure defense lawyers, Paatalo took the simple position that once the notice of rescission is sent, that is the end of the matter, to wit: it is effective upon mailing.
The Bank basically took the only road they had available — “That’s ridiculous. Nobody meant for the borrowers to be able to cancel the loan transactions.”
The Court said “Bank, you are wrong. The matter is settled.”
Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al
OPINION AND ORDER
11-12-2015
Motion to Dismiss DENIED
The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant’s argument when it declared “rescission is effected” at the time of notice . . . . . The question here is what happens when the unwinding process is not completed and **neither party files suit** within the TILA statute of limitations.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
WILLIAM J. PAATALO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
Defendant.
Case No. 6:15-cv-01420-AA
__________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
Case 6:15-cv-01420-AA Document 12 Filed 11/12/15 Page 11 of 18 Defendant argues this reading of Jesinoski cannot be correct because it means “a borrower’s mere notice of rescission automatically converts a secured lender into an unsecured lender, leaving the lender with no other remedy{?!} but to file suit to challenge the validity of a borrower’s rescission.”
…..The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant’s argument when it declared “rescission is effected” at the time of notice, without regard to whether a borrower files a lawsuit within the three-year period.
PAGE 11 – OPINION AND ORDER
Case 6:15-cv-01420-AA Document 12 Filed 11/12/15 Page 18 of 18
The timing of Jesinoski is also significant. Although foreclosing trustees and purchasers at trustee’s sales have a significant interest in finality, consumers have a countervailing interest in avoiding wrongful foreclosure. Jesinoski revealed the majority of federal courts had “misinterpreted the will of the enacting Congress,” Rivers, 511 U.S. at 313 n.12, in allocating to borrowers the burden to go to court to enforce their statutory rescission rights under TILA. Further factual development is necessary to determine what effect that revelation should have on the property rights of subsequent buyers of the property.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied with leave for defendant to renew its arguments about the effect of the trustee’s sale.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is DENIED. Defendant’s request for oral argument is DENIED as unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th Day November 2015.
Recent Comments