Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al | TILA RESCISSION | ~OPINION AND ORDER 11-12-2015~ | M-T-D….DENIED


 Via Deontos
A L E R T |
Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al | TILA RESCISSION | ~OPINION AND ORDER 11-12-2015~ | M-T-D….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.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Inline image 1
Justia › Dockets & Filings › Ninth Circuit › Oregon › Oregon District Court › Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al
Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al
Defendant: J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.
Plaintiff: William J. Paatalo
Case Number: 6:2015cv01420
Filed: July 29, 2015
Court: Oregon District Court
Office: Eugene (6) Office
Presiding Judge: Ann L. Aiken
Nature of Suit: Real Property: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed # Document Text
November 12, 2015 12 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant’s motion to dismiss 6 is DENIED. Defendant’s request for oral argument is DENIED as unnecessary. See formal OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 11/12/2015 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court’s PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court’s Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Advertisements

About Here and Now

I rant about issues concerning foreclosure, real estate law and any topic of interest. Normally my day job is Fashion and Costume Design. I like writing and reading interesting subjects.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.