the issues arose from the rescission provision of the truth in lending act which are set forth in the act and there's case law that there's a step one and step one is when you send a letter that's the rescission and it happens by operation of law and that's what my client did and that's what we plan to yes ok i was just going to ask you you're assuming that the letter that was sent was in fact  count you have to say something about that it has to get to them but i don't think it may go did it get to the beneficiary because this one did it it was sent to basco and then sent to dois i mean they had it timely so i don't know if that makes a difference in your thinking about because the circumstances were such that we have a consumer who's under fire he is in bankruptcy and he is trying to do anything he can do to save his home  and you have a service or you have an agent for george bank supposed to be the real beneficiary who's saying well we'll do this for you and make this work for now but he never he never said well i waive my rescission rights  and it's designed to protect consumers who may not know the boilerplate of what what all they're signing and it even says that you cannot wave your rights after the fact especially without using this very specific language under you're saying that under the truth of lending act they can't do that i'm saying they can't waive the rescission rights if they've exercised them effectively the statute is pretty straightforward and i think that was scalia's bent with it just a nasty i mean it just says what it says it is just sort draconian in that sense in favor of the consumer where ordinarily we see you know statutes of limitations have harsh application may you know let but the lender has to do something they can't just get this letter of decision and do nothing isn't that treated as a rejection it could be treated as a rejection of and that would put again the onus back on the borrower which i don't think the statute reads that way to have to go to court is supposed to be the lender is supposed to happen my operational law that much is clear and then the lender can say we don't accept this and they can they can take it to court and that's how that's like such is we actually pay them a certain amount of time it gives the bank a certain amount of time to go to court and say we want to reorder  steps two and three is called an equitable reordering and they can do that they can do that but they can't do is just nothing and just act like it didn't occur because it did under just not going under the plain language of the statute but i guess let me just follow up on whatever yeah but at time to before everything in fact has been on well and you decide you know what actually it's not in my interest now that i'm content to just basically renegotiate the terms of the loan right bank will give me that then i'll forget about this re you're not saying that that's an option that's unavailable or not that's available ok yeah so then why isn't that exactly what happened here but that's what happened here because i was in his but again and following the flavor of the previous argument is is that this is a hold the six motion is not sufficiency of the pleadings and we pled how the notice was deficient and we pled that they didn't receive two copies in a form they could take  they it ran but it didn't run on my client's rights it didn't run on step one it became the net the bank could no longer go to court and seek an equitable recorder in the bank could no longer challenge it because that was the onus was after st bank didn't do what it was supposed to do on its side and so the burden and the failure shouldn't fall on the consumer who did properly exercise is right happen by operational law because the parties have agreed about the till i hear there was a notice of rescission let's assume it went to the right place a bit julie there was not in the response from the  right there was not direct response from the lender i want to the effect of that well i want to respect the conditions of your question but also point out that the letters that purported to  exercise the right tourists in both go to tiffany and bosco there on the face of the document they save and they do say deutsche bank at the top and say via tiffany and bosco and there is no record evidence demonstrating that there was any any rescission sent to george bank tiffany abbas go did write back on october sixth was one of those letters and said are you alleging that we've failed to do or that the lender failed to give you copies or are you alleging that you did not execute the document there was not a response exactly to that letter and then again on october twenty first two thousand and eight mr taylor sent another letter to tiffany in basco that was what he titled a qualified written request asking a series of questions and again noting his intent to rescind so under miguel we think that is not effective where miguel it held it could ultimately the bar was so under the statute the lender has twenty days to come forward and say yes we accept your rescission or take some other action but if the lender doesn't take an action or does not cancel under the rescission the borrower has one year from that time under six sixteen forty and as miguel recognized to take some action against the borrower to enforce it recision it's the borrower has to take some action against the lender or the yes to because otherwise there it's just in some kind of legal purgatory and that the case is abound that being the way it happens i mean this court has recognized that in merit case cited by a till a violation the borrower bring suit against the lender to enforce the rescission and has one year from their refusal to cancel to do that and it's the same effect it's the same bird whether they respond or whether they don't  yes i i don't have any specific authority for that but if the lender says no the borrower has to take some action to enforce its rescission and here the bar were by any number of measures just took no such action for many many years i mean even though there was no prompt response directly from deutsche bank to be the letters that were sent within the three year period but incorrectly to tiffany in basco mr taylor later sent a letter to the service or to a s c in early two thousand and nine to which she responded explicitly by a letter of february sixth two thousand and nine and said your extended right to rescind has expired we're we're not going along with this if you take that one year statute of limitations from six hundred forty and you apply it to any number of events whether it's the feb sixth two thousand and nine letter from a s c whether it's the bankruptcy proceedings where the lender explicitly via its service or move to lift the stay in also in january two thousand and nine whether it's the record of the cancellation of mr taylor's you know self recorded deed of conveyance by any measure there two thousand and sixteen lawsuit is very very untimely and that's not taking into account the fact that they later entered the loan modification agreement which r d their obligations although modified and and though it did add some principle to the loan in the amount of i think closer to fifty four thousand dollars because it incorporated all of the overdue and pas interest and missed payments lower the interest rate from a variable rate between that fluctuated between seven and fourteen percent down to four percent and made the loan fixed as opposed to a variable there is no waiver in there's there is no waiver and of a right to a till a claim in the loan modification agreement we're simply arguing that by virtue of entering the agreement they have negotiated this this agreement which gets rid of the fact any fact that they might have previously argued about recision that the cases that appellant cited to have to do with waiver are cases in which a loan modification agreement includes an explicit waiver of causes of action here at the time they entered the loan modification in two thousand and ten there were no pending causes of action appellant had never brought a chill a claim the lender never asked them to waive attilla claim or there's there's just no waiver in there at all it's just the fact of their entering the agreement undercuts any claim they have about recision and i'd be happy to address the false recording issue if your honour's have any questions about thank you thank you would just like to clarify opposing counsel said that sixteen forty somehow places the burden and back on the borrower it doesn't say that that's not what the statute says you can look for that that's not there it doesn't say which party x next what it says is that you have you as the borrower have a one year within which to bring any action predicated on a violation of the provisions of the statute i think though that that is false if they've done something which just  us they've done something and it has a legal effect they have started something that then then the bank is the only party that can feasibly go inside we want to equitable reordering of the steps for paying back because that's what the bank generally does under the truth bank i think the bank is given what twenty days and what they're supposed to do something about it so they don't do anything right use the borrower sitting there saying hey my loan should have been rescinded right why doesn't the six hundred forty so you have a year after that twenty days expires in the bank has done nothing to basically put into effect the rescission that you've sounds on the decision you have a year in which to go after them in court and if you don't then why isn't your out there twice if there's no way of understanding what the think that that i don't i don't know that but when and when the statute has a specific order and our supreme court has just said yes it really does mean what it says step one is the borrower's then why why do why does it with does not say the bar retains all burdens to make sure that this occurs in fact you know and in practical application it happens otherwise a lot of banks ignored it they shouldn't i mean that's the purpose of the just consumer protection and i don't think we should encourage banks to just ignore people and say no you know this didn't occur when we have a statute i'm just not that says it did but otherwise you can show up twenty five years later and say hey remember that was the bank because they needed to do something affirmative if this is operation of law and that's what you just ask it clearly says i mean three times you know so what why does the onus fall in the bar did you say