Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13951/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13951

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-02126-VMC-AEP

AMADOU WANE, 

 Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,

MERLANDE WANE,

 Plaintiff-Counter Defendant,

versus

THE LOAN COMPANY, 

 Defendant-Appellee,

BANKUNITED, N.A.,

 Defendant-Counter Claimant,

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

AS RECEIVER OF BANKUNITED FSB,

 Defendant.

USCA11 Case: 15-13951 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

_____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 16, 2016)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

On January 14, 2014, we affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Wane’s claim for 

rescission under the Truth in Lending Act. See Wane v. Loan Corp., 552 F. App’x 

908, 912 (11th Cir. 2014). We concluded that Mr. Wane had failed to plead a 

sufficient factual basis for rescission. See id. Mr. Wane and his wife had mailed a 

notice of rescission, which was sufficient to contemplate a right to rescind, but had 

not pled enough sufficient facts to provide a substantive right to rescind. See id. 

Following our decision, Mr. Wane filed a motion for relief from judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4-6). The district court denied that 

motion, and Mr. Wane now appeals. 

After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district 

court’s denial of Mr. Wane’s Rule 60(b) motion. Mr. Wane relied on a new 

Supreme Court case, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. __, 135 

S. Ct. 790 (2015) (holding that Truth in Lending Act only requires written notice 

of intent to seek rescission within the three-year period for rescission), but that 

USCA11 Case: 15-13951 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

case does not affect the basis for the dismissal of his rescission claim. See Wane, 

552 F. App’x at 912. The district court therefore did not err in denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-13951 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 3 of 3