to issue regulations to give meaning and content to the truth in lending their economic plan that responsibility the federal reserve board efficient regulations e an official commentary thirty five a at the right to rescind only allowed lies with the albacore or people are obligated under the truth under the note and does nat lie with parties position that this would occur in every kind of situation or only in reverse mortgages every curves and of all consumer transactions this would apply so the fact that she was not on o and actually a case was overturned based upon this ruling and it was an individual who didn't sign the note but was the owner of the property and they had is really  the the most important factor i'd say is with regard to who's taking the risk here so regardless of whether we think you're entitled to relief we should at least weigh in on the reason they don't have the right recent and that's not the intention of an intention is this is too broad to anyone who has an ownership interest with regard to mortgage financing is changed dramatically since consumer transaction where security interest is taken against eight consumers principled well how much each consumer who has an ownership interest in a subject that security interest shall have the right recent well i think those are factors i think with regard to if i understand correctly with regard to the ownership factor i it whether you have control of the property on it but i think the most major factor and i would submit that is the same reasoning in distinction that justice ward made in his dissenting opinion and in that setting pinyin he took the first sentence of section thirteen section thirteen by thirty five yes there there can be a deficiency judgment against they had no holder but in reality they were sold to a collection agency for two or three cents on the dollar this property has been sold now correct that's correct what interest is left for principle on it so part of the game just would be either the value of the property then it was now or lost rent generally actual g m is are not a factor in these matters this is very unique in that you hay had a client have the funds at the hearing on exercising the right to rescind the pay back the  be going back to the original stance for prior to loan being made refund of the origination charge the broker fee the closing cost the interest the idea with the right rescission you bring the parties back to the original star my experiences with land trust is over many years i prepared many trust agreements they are ideal vehicle for an elderly person who wants to point probate whose only asset is the real state the want understand it and they will point somebody else son daughter somebody else and happens to receive those legal notices by the legal notice not sent in sent to the trustee you're avoiding you're avoiding their protection inherent in land trust hand and in the regulations it states that credit extended to a land trust shelby credit extended to a natural person in the case of a monte versus in the mack bank which came out of the subject to taking it out the land trust or make the proper disclosures they have elected not to take any of those safe harbor visions a mistake was made this is a with regard to the issue on sixteen thirty five it states that they had the right decision will expire once a property so or upon three years whatever comes first by any reasons the defendant his timely create is moot as to the release the security interest but this is the damages that still remains because you because you have to bring back the parties the actions the status quo cryer to lo who don't sign up again the holding of the court here was that this broad scope is where it language in the note in the mortgage signed by standard bank as a factual matter standard bank actually signed the note in this case so as a simple factual matter it's not really speaking to least and again i don't think it needs to be reached here but it does support the notion that it is a specific word that meant something that different from consumer and regulations e now it's understood in this case so they are very much proceeding on their own individual rights through rescission disclosures and clearly the language that they are not entitled to a party can only resent if the security interests in the in the sheila and regulations the preface the ability to rescind as only applying in situations where that security interest is in the person's principal while in fact this is reinforced by regulations itself it initially defines consumer as the person to whom credit is extended and it's likely expands that and says well for the purposes of rescission the person it expands consumer to the person in whose principal dwelling security interest is retained if that thus if a security interest is taken in he's ownership interest in a house and that house is is principled well it is a consumer for the purposes of decision and this clearly plays out as a right to can't bring a count for recision because the property that they're trying to effect rescission on wasn't her principles while for that reason at the very beginning of the opinion it strikes her count as research and standard banks counterclaim acknowledges this notion of principle as well in its counterclaims they state that in the pleading that the subject property is its own and so at least when they pleaded their counter claim they had this notion that they've had to be talking about  accurately knows that their main offices are ninety fifth street and agree hills also the mortgage says a trustee is not in it considered an occupant for the purposes of the long and in fact shouldn't be considered as having a principal residence for the purpose of the meaning that's a political under all circumstances and that in fact the only aspect of ownership of land trustee enjoys is very legal title control occupancy these rights of ownership go to other parties who are not the land  itself and responding to standard bank specific interpretation of regulations it that as long as one if there are multiple owners as long as one owner has the property is the principal dwelling space then all owners enjoy the right resent this can't be a fair interpretation of regulations the regulations you see it clearly distinguishes between consumers who are in recession and consumers who can't and so merely having one of several owners the have the property is the principal one space means that all the owners enjoy that isn't contemplated the regulations ian in fact the specific give me the specific mandate in the official staff commentary directly undermines this where they say if the property is is owned by the party and that property is their principle while in space you can the same it doesn't it's that nowhere in regulations easy contemplated that so long  is not taking on and liability or obligation whatsoever and this rejection of any responsibility or obligation of a loan actually comports with keyless treatment plan for cities as parties to mortgage transactions it says counterstrike that it says that land trustees are natural persons as far as the t l is concerned but they describe plan trustees and regulations you as a mechanism and also state that they hold their legal title to the property and it states that assuming that the purpose of the transaction is for household or family purposes she will apply because if something substance if not inform consumer credit is being given so he doesn't view land trustees as if you're really distinct actors in these types of transactions and this undermines database claim about how it enjoys rescissions claims that enjoys rescission rights because natural persons can descend and land trustees or natural person ignoring the fact that this this ignores the dual necessary conditions of ownership and that the property be the principal as well of the person rescinding it how trustees are characterized under teela is not to protect trustees it's to prevent the transaction from being characterized as one with an organization in which case she was consumer protections when the bought so wouldn't be a consumer transaction so it's not to protect or give consumer rights protection rights to a trustee it's to preserve the consumer protection rights in the actual person actual person for whose benefit the transaction is being undertaken in this case ms you're right it was to protect her rights not to provide any no no no no foul no harm they can't get that the law is you're supposed to send notice to the to to the title these are not difficult rules i would not expect a loan processor  a natural person what i would expect them to know send notice to the note holder send notice to the titleholder these are not difficult rules they're not confusing if you follow those rules you have a safe harbor there's no wish it that was not done the benefit of the trustee they just were never delivered and they are on the appendix forty forty two forty five in my in my and that's what was done through using standard bank as as as the the medi the section in the case of a consumer credit transaction in which a security interest is or will be retained or wired and property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom the credit is extended the two different parties that if you're talking about the person to whom credit is extended the principle dwelling if they were not if they were the same persons the drafters would said the principal dwelling of the