2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-13-2010

Timothy Siffel v. NFM Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-3850

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Timothy Siffel v. NFM Inc" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 968.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/968
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-3850

_____________

TIMOTHY SIFFEL;

 WENDY SIFFEL, 

Individually & as Husband and Wife,

 Appellants

v.

NFM, INC.; GREG PETERSON, 

d/b/a NFM, Inc.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC., 

d/b/a America's Wholesale Lender

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-05152)

District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 12, 2010

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR. Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 13, 2010)

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Timothy and Wendy Siffel appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment
 The original Complaint also named NFM, Inc. and Greg Peters as defendants. 

1

The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on numerous additional

counts, which were not raised on appeal. The only claim raised in this appeal is against

the lender, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 

 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have 2

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. 

2

in favor of defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The Siffels claim that 1

Countrywide violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) by not providing them each

with two copies of the notice of their right to rescind their mortgage agreement. On

appeal, the Siffels urge that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in

favor of Countrywide because there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether they received

the required copies of the notice. 

2

In 2006, the Siffels refinanced their mortgage loan with Countrywide. Under

TILA, the Siffels had a right to rescind this agreement within three days. 15 U.S.C. §

1635(a); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3). TILA mandates that lenders provide each borrower

with “two copies of the notice of the right to rescind.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a); 12 C.F.R. §

226.23(b)(1). The signed loan agreement included a “Notice of Right to Cancel” section,

in which the Siffels acknowledged that they had each received two copies of the required

written notice of their right to rescind. The Siffels did not rescind the agreement within

three days. 

Before the District Court, the Siffels claimed that Countrywide violated TILA by

not providing them each with two copies of the notice of their right to rescind - a total of
 The Siffels cite no authority to support this contention. 

3

 The Siffels did not previously claim, as they do on appeal, that Mr. Siffel was 4

confused by the questions during the deposition. 

3

four copies. On appeal, the Siffels contend that three of these copies “do not exist”

because Countrywide only produced as evidence a “singular Notice,” but “did not

produce the other three notices . . . as is its burden on summary judgment.” Appellants’

3

Br. 11, 13. The Siffels urge that, because Countrywide attached only one notice of the

right to rescind to its Motion for Summary Judgment, there is an issue of material fact as

to whether they each received two copies of the notice. 

However, when borrowers sign a document acknowledging receipt of notice, as

here, there is a rebuttable presumption that the lender provided the required notice. 15

U.S.C. § 1635(c). Furthermore, Mr. Siffel testified in a deposition that when he signed

the loan agreement it included an acknowledgment that each borrower, he and his wife,

 received two copies of the notice of their right to cancel. Mr. Siffel testified that: 4

Q: And two lines above your signature, there’s the language, the undersigned each

acknowledge receipt of two copies of notice of right to cancel and one copy of the

Federal Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement. Do you see that, sir?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you read that at the time?

A: Yes.

Q: And was that true, sir?

A: I’m sorry?

Q: Was that true?

A: As far as?

Q: The language I just read.

A: Yes, yes it is.

Q: And it was true on November the 28th?
4

A: Yes, sir.

Appellant Dep. at 87-89.

The District Court found that the Siffels provided no evidence to rebut the presumption

that they received the required notices. We agree. Therefore, we will affirm the District

Court’s grant of summary judgment.