Product: Mortgage

THIS IS THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO M & T BANK AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, REGARDING THE RECISSION IN WHICH THEY REFUSED TO HONOR, DATED, XX/XX/XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, M & T BANK/ CFPB/ FHA XXXX XXXX TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1635 and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.23, I hereby exercise my right to rescind the mortgage transaction that is identified by the above referenced account number. The primary basis of the rescission is that : XXXX. I was not provided with a completed copy of the notice of my right to rescind the consumer credit transaction, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( A ) AND Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.17 AND 226.23 2. The loan was never consummated. It was a table funded loan and the actual lender was conceived which is a violation of TILA and regulation Z. 
XXXX. The mortgage and note are void by operation of law under TILA recession, and by federal reserve XXXX XXXX and the XXXX Supreme Court XXXX. 
XXXX. Please see recent United States Supreme Court ruling on the right for rescission ; XXXX. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX. I am writing to assert my right to rescind a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and to request that this right be honored based on prevailing XXXX  Supreme Court case law. I have exercised my right to rescind within the statutory period provided by XXXX, specifically within the first XXXX months of the consummation of the loan. 
XXXX. Under XXXX, a borrower has the right to rescind a loan agreement for up to XXXX years from the date of consummation if the lender has failed to provide the required disclosures. This right is enshrined in 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( a ), which provides : ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any consumer credit transaction, other than a transaction referred to in subsection ( b ) of this section, the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the notice of the right to rescind whichever is later Illinois XXXX XXXX Supporting TILA Rescission : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : In this case, the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX that XXXX rescission right is unequivocally enforceable if exercised within the XXXX period and highlighted that the statutes purpose is to provide a remedy for borrowers who are not properly informed. 
XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : The court reaffirmed that TILA rescission rights are substantive and enforceable even if the borrower has held the mortgage for more than XXXX years. This case underscores the federal nature of XXXX and its preemptive effect over conflicting state statutes. 
XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : The court held that the right to rescind under TILA is absolute within the specified time frame and can not be negated by any misinterpretations or failures of the lender to act promptly on the request. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : The court found that the lender 's failure to provide a completed notice of the right to rescind violated TILA and Regulation Z, thereby entitling the borrower to rescind the transaction. This case demonstrates that a lenders non-compliance with disclosure requirements nullifies the typical time constraints for exercising the right to rescind. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX non-compliance with XXXX disclosure requirements, including providing an incomplete notice of the right to rescind, supports the borrowers right to rescind the mortgage. 
FEDERAL CASE LAWS In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Supreme Court addressed the right of a borrower to rescind a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). The petitioner, XXXX, had taken out a mortgage loan and later sought to rescind the loan within XXXX years of the transaction. The central issue was whether the borrower needed to file a lawsuit to exercise the right to rescind, or if simply providing written notice to the lender was sufficient. 
XXXX XXXX : The key issue in this case was whether a borrower can rescind a loan under XXXX by merely notifying the lender in writing, or if they must file a lawsuit within the three-year period to effectuate the rescission. 
Courts Ruling : The Supreme Court ruled that a borrower may exercise the right to rescind a mortgage loan under XXXX by providing written notice to the lender within the XXXX-year period. It is not necessary for the borrower to file a lawsuit within that period ; the right to rescind is effective upon proper notice. 
Key Points from the Courts Ruling : Exercise of Right to Rescind : The Court held that the language of TILA and Regulation Z is clear that the right to rescind a loan can be exercised simply by providing written notice to the lender. 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( a ) allows borrowers to rescind a loan within XXXX years of the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the notice of the right to rescind, whichever is later. 
XXXX Notice XXXX : According to 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( a ), a borrower must notify the lender of their intention to rescind within the XXXX-year period. The XXXX affirmed that this requirement is met by sending a written notice to the lender, and no further action, such as filing a lawsuit, is required to effectuate the rescission. 
No Need for Lawsuit to Rescind : The XXXX clarified that while XXXX provides a borrower the right to rescind, it does not require the borrower to file a lawsuit within the three-year period. Instead, a lawsuit may be necessary only if the lender does not honor the rescission and there are disputes about the effects of rescission. 
Effectiveness of Rescission : The ruling reinforced that the rescission is effective upon the lenders receipt of the notice, and the lender must take appropriate actions to comply with the rescission request, such as canceling the XXXX and returning any payments made by the borrower. 
Legal Significance : XXXX. Clarity on XXXX XXXX : The decision provides clarity on the procedure for exercising the right to rescind under XXXX. It confirms that borrowers do not need to file a lawsuit to effectuate a rescission, simplifying the process for consumers seeking to exercise this right. 
XXXX. XXXX of XXXX Rights : The ruling underscores the enforcement of consumer rights under XXXX and ensures that borrowers have a clear and straightforward method for rescinding mortgage transactions without the additional burden of immediate litigation. 
Impact on Mortgage XXXX : The decision impacts how mortgage lenders handle rescission requests, requiring them to process such requests effectively and return any payments as required by XXXX. 
XXXX Scalias Opinion Relevant Significance : XXXX. Right of Rescission Under TILA Text of TILA : Justice Scalias opinion focused on the interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1635, which provides the right of rescission for certain types of credit transactions. The key question was whether the right to rescind is exercised by notifying the creditor or if it requires filing a lawsuit within the three-year period. 
Notification vs. Lawsuit : XXXX XXXX held that the borrowers right to rescind is triggered by providing written notice to the lender within the XXXX-year period, not by initiating a lawsuit within that time frame. 
XXXX. Clarification of Rescission Process Notification Requirement : Justice Scalias opinion clarified that under TILA, a borrower must notify the lender of their intent to rescind within the three-year period. This notice effectively exercises the right to rescind, and no further action is required within that period to complete the rescission. 
XXXX of XXXX : The actual completion of rescission ( e.g., returning the loan proceeds and property ) does not need to occur within the three-year period. The key is that the borrowers intent to rescind must be clearly communicated to the lender within the prescribed period. 
No Need for Lawsuit : The Courts interpretation rejected the argument that borrowers must file a lawsuit within the XXXX-year period to exercise their right to rescind. Instead, the written notice of rescission is sufficient. 
XXXX. Rationale Behind the Decision Statutory Language : XXXX XXXX emphasized the plain language of TILA, which specifies that rescission is achieved by notifying the creditor. The statute does not impose a requirement to file a lawsuit within the three-year period. 
Purpose of XXXX : The opinion also highlighted that the purpose of TILAs rescission provision is to allow consumers to opt out of transactions that were not properly disclosed. Requiring a lawsuit to complete the rescission would be inconsistent with the statutes goal of consumer protection. 
Legislative Intent : The decision was based on interpreting the legislative intent behind XXXX, which aims to provide a straightforward process for rescinding loans when required disclosures are not provided. 
Impact and Implications XXXX XXXX : The ruling reinforces consumers ' rights under XXXX, ensuring that they can exercise their right to rescind by notifying the lender within XXXX years, regardless of additional procedural requirements. 
Clarity for Borrowers and Lenders : The decision provides clear guidance on the rescission process, reducing uncertainty for both borrowers and lenders regarding the exercise of the right of rescission under XXXX. 
Legal Precedent : XXXX establishes a precedent that emphasizes adherence to the plain text of XXXX and clarifies the procedural aspects of exercising the right to rescind. 
Conclusion : The Supreme Court 's decision in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms that the right to rescind a mortgage loan under TILA can be exercised by providing written notice within the XXXX-year period. A lawsuit is not required to effectuate the rescission, simplifying the process for borrowers and reinforcing the enforcement of their TILA rights. 
Pursuant to XXXX and XXXX XXXX, you have XXXX ( XXXX ) days after receipt of this Notice of XXXX to return all monies paid and to take action necessary and appropriate to terminate the security interest. Please be advised that the mortgage is automatically voided by operation of law upon rescission under 15 U.S.C 1635 ( B ). Therefore, any attempt to report this mortgage to a credit agency is a willful violation of XXXX and Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681a, et seq. 

The XXXX Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principles of TILA rescission, affirming that the borrowers right to rescind remains intact as long as it is within the statutory period and the lender has failed to meet the disclosure requirements. These precedents support that the rescission right is a critical protection for consumers and must be honored regardless of subsequent events or lender objections. 
Given the above legal context, I am asserting my right to rescind the mortgage loan under XXXX. Please proceed with the necessary actions to facilitate this rescission and return all payments made under the loan, including any fees or charges, as mandated by law. 
I trust that this matter will be resolved promptly and in accordance with the established legal precedents. Should you require any further information or documentation from my end, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
Please contact me to arrange the delivery to me of all monies paid under the mortgage, including all closing costs, principal, and interest. Additionally, please mail me confirmation the mortgage has been voided and no negative information will be reported to the credit bureaus with respect to this loan. 
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. 

Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX