2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-13-2010 

# T imoth y S i ffel v . NFM Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3850

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Timoth y S i ffe l v . NFM Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 968. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/968NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 3850

_____________ TI M OTH Y SI FF EL; W E N D Y S IF F E L , I ndi vi dual l y& as H us band and W i fe, A pp el l ants

v. N F M , IN C .; G R E G P E T E R S O N , d /b /a N F M , In c .; C O U N T R Y W ID E H O M E L O A N S IN C .,

d/b/ a A m er i ca' s W hol es al e Lender
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 05152) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y12, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , JO R D A N and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y13, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. T i m ot hyand W endySi ffe l appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entT h e o ri g in a l C o m p la in t a ls o n a m e d N F M , In c . a n d G re g P e te rs a s d e f e n d a n ts . 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfort he def endant s on num er ous addi t i onal cou nts , w hich w ere notrai sed on app eal . T he o nlycl ai m rai sed i n thi s appea l i s agai nst th e le n d e r, C o u n tr yw id e H o m e L o a n s , In c . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331, and w e have 2 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 2 i n favorof def

endantC ount r yw i de H om e Loans, I nc. T he Si ffe l s cl ai m t hat 1 C ount r yw i de vi ol at ed the Truth i n L endi ng A ct( “TILA ”) bynotpr ovi di ng t hem each wi t h t wo c o p i e s o f

t h e n o t i c e o f

t h e i rr i g h tt o r e s c i n d t h e i rmo r t g a g e a g r e e me n t . On
a p p e a l, th e S if

f e ls u rg e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof C ount r yw i de bec aus e ther e i s a di s put ed i s s ue of f actas t o w hethert heyr ece i ved t he r equi r ed copi es of the not i ce. 2 I n 2006, t he Si ffe l s r efi nance d t hei rm or t gage l oan w i t h C ount r yw i de. U nder T IL A , th e S if

f e ls h a d a ri g h t to re s c in d th is a g re e m e n t w ith in th re e d a y s . 1 5 U .S .C . § 1635( a) ; 12 C . F. R . § 226. 23( a) ( 3) . T I L A m andat es t hatl ender s pr ovi de ea ch borr ow er w ith “ tw o c o p ie s o f

th e n o tic e o f

th e ri g h t to re s c in d .” 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 3 5 (a ); 1 2 C .F .R . § 226. 23( b) ( 1) . T he s i gned l oan agr eementi ncl uded a “ N ot i ce of R i ghtt o C ance l ” s ect i on, i n w hi ch the Si ffe l s acknow l edged thatt heyhad ea ch r ece i ved tw o copi es of the r equi r ed
w ritten n o tice o f

th e ir rig h t to re sc in d . T h e S if f e ls d id n o t re sc in d th e a g re e m e n t w ith in th re e d a y s . B efor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , t he Si ffe l s cl ai m ed thatC ount r yw i de vi ol at ed TILA by notpr ovi di ng t hem each w i t h t w o copi es of the not i ce of t hei rr i ghtt o r es ci nd - a t ot al ofT h e S if f e ls c ite n o a u th o ri ty to s u p p o rt th is c o n te n tio n . 3 T he Si ffe l s di d notpr evi ous l ycl ai m , as t heydo on appea l , t hatM r . Si ffe l w as 4 c o n f u s e d b yth e q u e s tio n s d u ri n g th e d e p o s itio n . 3 f o u r c o p ies . O n a p p e a l, th e S if f e ls c o n ten d th a t th re e o f th e se c o p ies “ d o n o t ex ist” beca us e C ount r yw i de onl ypr oduced a s evi dence a “s i ngul arN ot i ce, ” but“di d not produ ce t he o t her three no t i ces . . . as i s i t s burden on sum m aryj ud gm ent. ” A pp el l ants ’ 3 B r . 11, 13. T he Si ffe l s ur ge that , beca us e C ount r yw i de att ache d onl yone not i ce of t he
r i ghtt o r es ci nd t o i t s M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent , t her e i s an i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas to w h e th e r t h e ye a c h re c e iv e d tw o c o p ie s o f th e n o tic e . H ow ever , w hen borr ow er s s i gn a documentacknow l edgi ng r ece i ptof not i ce, as her e, t her e i s a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on t hatt he l enderpr ovi ded the r equi r ed not i ce. 15 U . S. C . § 1635( c) . Fur t herm or e, M r . Si ffe l t es t i fi ed i n a depos i t i on t hatw hen he s i gned t he l oan agr eementi ti ncl uded an a cknow l edgmentt hateac h bor r ow er , he and hi s w i fe,
re c e iv e d tw o c o p ies o f th e n o tice o f

th e ir rig h t to c a n c e l. M r. S if f e l tes tifie d th a t: 4 Q : A nd t w o l i nes above y ours i gnatur e, t her e’ s t he l anguage , t he under s i gned ea ch acknow l edge r ece i ptof tw o copi es of not i ce of r i ghtt o canc el and one c opyof the F ed era l T ruth in L en d ing D iscl o su re S tat em en t. D o y o u see that, sir ? A : Y es. Q : D i d y ou r ead thatatt he t i m e? A : Y es. Q : A n d w as th at true , sir ? A : I ’ m s o r r y? Q : W as t hatt rue? A : A s faras? Q : T he l anguage I j us tr ead. A : Y es, y es i ti s. Q : A nd i tw as t rue on N ovembert he 28th?4

A : Y es, si r. A ppel l antD ep. at87- 89. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatt he Si ffe l s pr ovi ded no evi dence t o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on t hatt heyr ece i ved the r equi r ed not i ces . W e agr ee. T her efor e, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.