I filed a rescission to my mortgage lender years ago, along with the XXXX screen shots that showed that my signature released the credit to the bank, the BANK WAS NOT THE LENDER I was! Henceforth they breached TILA, Truth in Lending Act. When the bank foreclosed, I supplied all internal documents and also showed that the banks never responded to any of my actions or my mortgage documents. Then in their eye 's, upon 90 day 's after I defaulted, the bank was paid 60x times the value by the insurance company! Yes, for each XXXX the bank got {>= $1,000,000}. 
Rescission enforcement TILA and Reg Z Its effect is to immediately unencumber the property from any claims of lien or mortgage and any claim on the note which is void and must be returned marked " cancelled ''. 
XXXX XXXX If the parties collecting or enforcing the loans really have a right to do so they may demonstrate that in court by filing a lawsuit to set aside the rescission based upon any factual grounds they wish to raise, applying the rules of the TILA statutory scheme for rescission. But if they do n't do that within 20 days they waive their defenses. AND if they do n't comply with TILA by returning the canceled note, filing a satisfaction of mortgage and returning all money paid by borrower, then they are barred from making even an unsecured claim for " damages. '' The action to enforce rescission would essentially consist of an allegation that the notice was sent, it has been more than 20 days since the notice was sent, and therefore the parties claiming to be creditors owe ( 1 ) return of canceled note, ( 2 ) filing a satisfaction of mortgage and ( 3 ) return of all money paid by borrower since the inception of the allegedLOANDescription XXXX XXXX contract. We will refuse to get into an argument about whether the rescission should have been sent. THAT is something that the parties would have had to allege in a lawsuit against the borrower ( s ) to set the rescission aside. 

According to TILA, Reg Z and the XXXX Court ( XXXX decision ) the rescission IS effective ( by operation of law ) the moment it is put in XXXX Mail. The borrower does not have to be right to send it. THAT issue is left to theBANKSDescription : XXXX : XXXX and servicers to allege in a lawsuit to vacate the rescission. And they must do so within 20 days. All issues that are confusing everyone -- statute of limitations, purchase money first mortgage, etc. are questions of fact that need to be raised by the other side. They can not do so after 20 days. We would move to strike those defenses when raised in our lawsuit to enforce rescission. 
There are dozens of lawyers across the country that agree with my interpretation of the TILA rescission statutes and who are filing these rescission enforcement actions. In some cases, XXXX has agreed that the rescission is effective and even agreed that the original payee was not the lender. That is an interesting juxtaposition of theories. Because if there was no funding by the payee on the note ( " lender '' ) then there is no loan contract. If there is no contract, there is nothing to rescind. But the rescission under TILA might still apply as to the note and mortgage and the right to obtain disgorgement of money paid by borrower might be partially blocked by the standard statute of limitations governing contract disputes or the statute regarding tort actions. 

It sounds weird, I know. But the fact is that XXXX specifically decided that the act of the borrower in sending a notice of rescission cancels theLOANDescription : XXXX XXXX and Reg Z ( Federal Reserve ) says that by operation of law that means the note and mortgage become void as of the date of mailing.