FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB 14, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13739 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 1 8 3 - C V- T - 2 6 E AJ Y O L A N D A P A R K E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s N A N C Y P O T T E R , in d iv id u a lly , M O N E Y C O N S U L T A N T S , I N C ., aF lo r id ac o rp o r a tio n , D O O L E Y & D R A K E , P .A ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , C L E R K O F T H E C O U R T F O R T H E 6 T H J U D I C I A L C I R C U I T , P I N E L L A S C O U N T Y , F L O R I D A , in its o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity , D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 14, 2007)2

B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Y ol anda P arker ( “ P arker” ) f i l ed sui tagai nstN ancyP ot t er(“ P ot t er ”) , M on ey C ons ul t a nt s , I nc . ( “ M one y ” ) , a nd D ool e y & D r a ke , P . A . ( “ D ool e y ” ) f orr e s c i s s i on un der the T ruth i n L endi ng A ct(“ T IL A ”) , 15 U . S . C . § 1 63 5, and for st at e l aw c la im s . P a rk e rc o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g P o tte r ’s m o tio n to di s m i s s f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) . A l though w e ag ree w i th th e d i stri ctco u rtth atP ark er fai l ed t o p ro p erl y al l eg e th atP o tt er i s a cred i t o r u n d er th e T IL A , w e v acat e an d rem an d o n o th er g ro u n d s. B AC KG RO UN D U nb ekno w nstt o P arker, on M ay20 , 20 03 , her husband , G ary K . P arker, c ontr a c t e d w i th M one yf ora pr om i s s ory not e a nd m or t ga ge i n the a m ountof $ 8 7 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 , s e c u r e d b y th e irm a r ita l h o m e . G a ry K . P a rk e ru s e d $ 7 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to pa y of f the ba l a nc e of

the or i gi na l m or t ga ge on the m a r i t a l hom e a nd ke ptthe r e m a in in g f

u n d s f o rh is p e r s o n a l u s e . I n M a y , 2 0 0 3 , M o n e y s o ld th e m o r tg a g e to P ott e r . D ool e y , the l a w f i rm tha tc l os e d the l oa n t o G a ry K . P a rke r , ha ndl e d a l l the doc um e nt s f

orP ott e r ’ s pur c ha s e , a nd r e c e i ve d a nd he l d P ott e r ’ s $875, 000. 00 f or the pur c ha s e of

the m or t ga ge . I n A ugus t2003, G a ry K . P a rke rde f a ul t e d on the prom i ss ory not e. B ef

ore afore cl osure a ct i on com m ence d, i tw as di sc ov er ed that3

the ho m e w as m ar i t al prop erty, and P arker had no tsi gn ed the m ort gage. D oo l ey r e q u e s te d th a t P a rk e rc o m e in a n d s ig n th e m o r tg a g e , b y th a t tim e h e ld b y P o tte r . P arker s i gn ed the m ort gage on A ug ust19 , 20 03 , on the sa m e docum entthatG ary K . P a rke rha d s i gne d on M a y 20, 2003. T he m or t ga ge w a s r e - r e c or de d t o a dd P arker’ s nam e. P arker w as no tprov i ded w i th a no t i ce of her r i gh tt o res ci nd as re qu i re d b y 15 U . S . C . § 1 63 5, or any of the other r equi re d d i sc l osures , on thatday o ra n y tim e th e r e a f

te r . S e v e n d a y s a f

t e rP a rk e rs i g n e d th e m o r t g a g e , P o tt e rd e c l a r e d b o th Ga ry K. P arker a nd Y ol anda P arker i n d ef aul t . F orec l osure procee di ng s e nsued o n January 20 , 20 04 (w here i n D oo l eyre pres ent ed P ot t er ). In Ja nu ary, 20 05 , the st at e c ou rt grant ed fi nal sum m ary j ud gm entof fore cl osure t o P ot t eras agai nstG ary K . P arker a n d Y o la n d aP a rk e r . O n S e pt e m be r29, 2005, P a rke r , thr ough he ra tt orne y , ga ve not i c e of re sc i ss i on un der the T IL A t o P ot t er , throu gh w hi ch P arker s ou gh tt o res ci nd “ her obl i ga t i on pur s ua ntt o tha tc e r t a i n m or t ga ge doc um e nts i gne d by he ri n f a vorof M one y M a na ge m e ntori t s a s s i gns , t o w i t : N a nc y P ott e r . ” I n J a nua ry 2006, the s ta te c o u r t s e t af

o r e c lo s u r e d a te o f

F e b ru a ry 6 , 2 0 0 6 f

o rth e h o m e . P a rk e rf

a ile d to obt a i n as t a y of

the f or e c l os ur e i n s t a t e c our ta nd f i l e d thi s a c t i on on F e brua ry 1, 2006, i ni t i a l l y a s a M ot i on f orT e m por a ry a nd P e rm a ne ntR e s tr a i ni ng O r de r . T he4

di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d P a rke ra r e s tr a i ni ng or de ra nd the hom e w a s f or e c l os e d upon, and sub se qu ent l y purchas ed i n forecl osure by P ot t er . T he di stri ctcourtaf forded P a rke rthe oppor tuni ty t o a m e nd a nd thi s c a s e pr oc e e de d a s a n a c t i on f orr e s c i s s i on u n d erth e T IL A , an d fo r s tate law claim s. T h e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted P o tt er ’s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss u n d er F ed . R . C i v . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ) an d P ark er n o w ap p eal s. STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e v ie w d is m is s a ls p u r s u a n t to R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , de nov o, t a ki ng a l l the m a t e r i a l a l l e ga t i ons of

the c om pl a i nta s true w hi l e l i be r a l l y c ons trui ng the c o m p la in t in f

a v o ro f th e p la in tif

f . E l l is v. G en era l

Mo to rs A ccep ta n ce C o rp . , 160 F . 3d 703, 706 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T he di s tr i c tc our tm a y onl y gr a nta R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o d i sm i ss w here i ti s dem on stra t ed "bey on d d ou btthatthe pl ai nt i ff ca n p r o v e n o s e t o f

f a c ts in s u p p o r t o f

h is c la im w h ic h w o u ld e n title h im to r e lie f ." C onl e y v . G i bs on , 35 5 U . S . 41 , 45 -46, 78 S . C t . 99 , 10 2, 2 L . E d. 2d 80 (195 7). A lth o u g h th e th r e s h o ld is " e x c e e d in g ly lo w " f o ra c o m p la in t to s u rv iv e a m o tio n to d is m is s f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te a c la im , A ncata v. P rison Heal th S ervi ces, Inc. , 769 F . 2d 700, 703 ( 11th C i r . 1985) , a c our tnone the l e s s m a y di s m i s s a c om pl a i nton a d is p o s itiv e is s u e o f

la w . Se e M

ars hal l C ount y B d. of E duc . v . M

ars hal l C ount y G as D is t. , 99 2 F . 2d 11 71 , 11 74 (11th C i r. 19 93 ). DI S CUS S I ON5

T h e d e c la r e d p u rp o s e o f th e T I L A , w h ic h r e g u la te s c o n s u m e rc r e d it tr a ns a c t i ons , i s “ t o a s s ur e a m e a ni ngf ul di s c l os ur e of

c r e di tt e rm s s o tha tthe c o n s u m e rw ill b e ab le to c o m p a r e m o r e r e a d ily th e v a r io u s c r e d it te rm s a v a ilab le to h i m an d t o av o i d th e u n i n fo rm ed u se o f cred i t , an d t o p ro t ectth e co n su m er ag ai n st i nacc urat e a nd un fa i r c re di tbi l l i ng and credi tca rd pract i ce s. ” 15 U . S . C . § 1 60 1(a) ; s e e B e ac h v . O c w e n Fe d. B ank , 523 U . S . 410, 412, 118 S . C t . 1408, 1410- 11, 140 L . E d. 2d 566 ( 1998) . A c c or di ngl y , the T I L A r e qui r e s c r e di t or s t o pr ovi de c ons um e r s w i th “ c l e a ra nd a c c ur a t e di s c l os ur e s of t e rm s de a l i ng w i th thi ngs l i ke f in a n c e c h a r g e s , a n n u a l p e r c e n ta g e r a te s o f in te r e s t, a n d th e b o rr o w e r ’s r ig h ts ,” in c lu d in g th e r ig h t o f

r e s c is s io n . I

d. a t4 1 2 , 1 1 8 S . C t . a t1 4 1 0 . F u r th e r , th e T I L A pr ovi de s tha tw he n al oa n m a de i n a c ons um e rc r e di ttr a ns a c t i on i s s e c ur e d by the c ons um e r ’ s pr i nc i pa l dw e l l i ng, the c ons um e rha s the r i ghtt o r e s c i nd the tr a ns a c t i on unt i l m i dni ghtof the thi r d bus i ne s s da y f ol l ow i ng the c ons um m a t i on of th e tran sact i o n o r d el i v ery o f th e m at eri al d i scl o su re an d resci ssi o n fo rm s, w h i ch ev er i s l at er. 1 5 U . S . C . § 1 6 3 5 (a). If th e cred i t o r fai l s t o d el i v er th e fo rm s, orf a i l s t o pr ovi de the r e qui r e d i nf orm a t i on, the n the c ons um e r ’ s r i ghtof r e s c i s s i on e x te n d s f o rth r e e y e a r s a f

te rth e d a te o f

c o n s u m m a tio n o f

th e tr a n s a c tio n , o ru n til th e p r o p e r ty is s o ld , w h ic h e v e ro c c u r s f ir s t. 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 3 5 ( f ) ; 1 2 C .F .R . § 22 6. 23 (a )( 3).6

A . Cr e d ito rL ia b ility T h e T I L A im p o s e s th e d u ty to d is c lo s e u p o n “c r e d ito r s ” a s th a t te rm is d efi n ed b y 1 5 U . S . C . § 1 6 0 2 . S ect i o n 1 6 0 2 (f) d efi n es “ cred i t o r” as fo l l o w s: T h e te rm “c r e d ito r ” r e f

e r s o n ly to a p e r s o n w h o b o th ( 1 ) r e g u la r ly ext ends . . . consum ercr edi tw hi ch i s pay abl e by a gree m enti n m ore th a n f o u r in s ta llm e n ts o rf

o rw h ic h th e p a y m e n t o f a f in a n c e c h a r g e is orm a y be r e qui r e d, a nd ( 2) i s the pe r s on t o w hom the de bta r i s i ng f r om the c ons um e rc r e di ttr a ns a c t i on i s i ni t i a l l y pa y abl e on the f a c e of th e e v id e n c e o f

in d e b te d n e s s . . . . 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 2 . T h e p a r a lle l p r o v is io n in R e g u la tio n Z p r o v id e s : C re di t or m ea ns: (i ) A pers on (A ) w ho re gu l ar l y e xt ends consum er cr edi tthati s subj ec tt o a fi nance char ge or i s pay abl e by w ri tt en a gr e e m e nti n m or e tha n 4 i ns t a l l m e nt s ( noti nc l udi ng a do w np ay m ent ), and (B ) t o w ho m the ob l i gat i on i s i ni t i al l y pay abl e, ei ther on the fa ce of the no t e or c on tra ct , or by agre em entw hen there is n o n o te o rc o n tr a c t. 1 2 C .F .R . § 2 2 6 .2 ( a ) ( 1 7 ) . S e c tio n 1 6 4 0 p r o v id e s th a t c r e d ito r s w h o f a il to c o m p ly w ith th e T I L A ’s d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e s u b je c t to c iv il liab ility . 1 5 U .S .C . § 16 40 (a ) ( “ [A ] ny cr edi t or w ho fa i l s t o com pl y w i th any re qu i re m enti m po se d u nd er thi s part , i ncl ud i ng any r equi re m entun der s ec t i on 16 35 of thi s t i t l e . . . w i th res pect to a n y p e r s o n is liab le to s u c h p e r s o n . . . .” ) . P arker’ s S ec on d A m ended C om pl ai ntm akes the general al l egat i on that P ot t eri s a“ cr edi t or” a s def i ned b y the T IL A , “ si nce thi s m ort gage w as ob t ai ned th r o u g h amo r t g a g e b r o k e r , t o w i t , M O N EY a n d / o rD O O LEY . ” Pl . ’ s Se c o n d A m.Although Par ker f ailed to attach the Mortg ag e Note or the Fir st Mortgag e to her Second 1 Amended Complaint, we ma y consider thedocuments “without convertingthe motion into one fo r summ ary

judgment o nly

if theattac he d document[sare ]: ( 1) c entral totheplaintif f' s c laim; and (2) undisputed.” Horsley v. Feldt , 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 ( 11th Cir. 2002). In this case, the documents, attached to Potter’s Motion to Dismi ss and par t of the re cord on a

ppeal, serve a s the memorialization of the very transac tion that Parker se eks to resc ind. Further, the pa rties do not dispute the authenticity

of the documents. 7 P e t. a n d C o m p l. ¶ 1 7 . P o tte ra r g u e s th a t P a rk e r ’s c o m p la in t is in s u f f ic ie n t to s ta te ac a us e of

a c t i on be c a us e P a rke r ’ s c om pl a i ntdoe s noti nc l ude the a l l e ga t i on of a ny s pe c i f i c f a c t s i ndi c a t i ng tha tP ott e re i the r( 1) r e gul a r l y e xt e nds c r e di t , or( 2) i s the pe r s on t o w hom the de bti s ow e d on the f a c e of the m ort ga ge not e , the de f i ni t i on s p e lle d o u t in § 1 6 0 2 ( f

) o f th e T I L A . In o rd er fo r a p erso n t o b e co n si d ered a cred i t o r u n d er th e T IL A , sh e m u st fa l l un der both p rong s of § 16 02 (f ). P arker’ s c om pl ai ntfa i l s t o p roperl y a l l ege that P o tte rf a lls u n d e rth e s e c o n d p r o n g o f th e d e f in itio n — th a t is , s h e h a s f a ile d to a lle g e f a c ts s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w th a t P o tte ris th e p e r s o n to w h o m th e o b lig a tio n is i n i t i al l y p ayab l e o n th e face o f th e n o t e. B o th th e M o rt g ag e N o t e an d F i rst M or t ga ge de s i gna t e M one y a s the pa y e e of the obl i ga t i on c r e a t e d by the m or t ga ge 1 tran sact i o n . P o tt er’ s n am e ap p ears no w here on the f a c e of the M ort ga ge N ot e or F ir s t M o r tg a g e . T h e c le a rla n g u a g e o f th e T I L A r e q u ir e s th a t o n ly th e p e r s o n to w hom the de bti s ow e d on the f a c e of the m or t ga ge i s a c r e di t or . I n s pi t e of the f a c ttha tP ott e rhe l d the m or t ga ge a tthe t i m e tha tP a rke rs i gne d i t , P ott e rdoe s not f a ll u n d e rth e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e d e f in itio n o f “c r e d ito r ” u n d e rth e T I L A .8

T h e r e f o r e , e v e n if

w e lib e r a lly c o n s tru e th e c o m p la in t, P a rk e rh a s n o t a lle g e d f a c ts thatsupp ortthe l egal concl usi on thatP ot t eri s acr edi t or un der the ac t . T he di stri ct co u rtp ro p erl y h el d th atP ark er’ s co m p l ai n td o es n o tst at e a cau se o f act i o n ag ai n st P ot t eras a c re di t or for avi ol at i on of the T IL A as a c re di t or. B . A s s i

gne e L i abi l i t

y f orR e s c is s i on T he di stri ctcourtal so consi dere d the po ss i bi l i ty thatP ot t eri s a n ass i gn ee un der the T IL A . W hi l e P arker’ s c om pl ai ntdo es no tspec i fi ca l l y a l l ege thatP ot t er i s a n a s s i gne e of

the obl i ga t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tr e vi e w e d the appl i c abi l i ty of a s s i g n e e l i ab i l i ty u n d e rth e TI LA. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o rr e c t l y n o t e d th a tth e TI LA d o e s n o t im p o s e a d u ty u p o n a s s ig n e e s to d e te rm in e w h e th e rap p r o p r ia te di s c l os ur e s w e r e m a de , othe rtha n thos e appa r e nton the f a c e of the doc um e nt . T he s ta tu te p r o v id e s f

o rc iv il liab ility a g a in s t a s s ig n e e s o n ly w h e r e a v io la tio n is apparenton the fa ce of the di sc l osure s t at em ent . 15 U . S . C . § 1 64 1(a) . H o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o v e r lo o k s th e f a c t th a t P a rk e r ’s c la im is n o t a c iv il a c tio n u n d e r§ 1 6 4 0 ( a ) o r§ 1 6 4 1 ( a ) f o rv io la tio n o f

th e d is c lo s u r e r e g u la tio n s . R a th e r , P a rk e r ’s c o m p la in t s e e k s r e s c is s io n o f th e tr a n s a c tio n u n d e r§ 1 6 3 5 . See P l . ’ s S eco n d A m . P et . an d C o m p l . ¶ 5 8 . A n act i o n fo r resci ssi o n u n d er § 1 6 3 5 i s a di st i nctcause of a ct i on fr om a c i vi l ac t i on for avi ol at i on of the T IL A ’ s di sc l osure r e qui r e m e nt s , a nd a s s i gne e s a r e l i abl e f orr e s c i s s i on e ve n i f

a di s c l os ur e vi ol a t i on9

i s not“ apparenton the fa ce . ” Se e R ow land v . N ov us F i n. C or

p. , 949 F . S upp. 1447, 1458 ( D . H a w . 1996) . C ons um e r s a r e notl i m i t e d i n s e e ki ng r e s c i s s i on f r om c r e di t or s . T he T I L A c l e a r l y s t a t e s tha ti f a c ons um e ri s e l i gi bl e f orr e s c i s s i on unde r§ 1635, s he m a y s e e k r e s c i s s i on of the tr a ns a c t i on a s a ga i ns tthe c r e di t oror “a s a g a in s t any a s s ig n e e o f th e o b lig a tio n .” 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 4 1 ( c ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h u s, i f P ark er i s el i g i b l e t o seek resci ssi o n u n d er § 1 6 3 5 , sh e m ay d o so as ag ai n st the c r e di t or , ora s a ga i ns ta ny a s s i gne e of the m or t ga ge obl i ga t i on, r e ga r dl e s s of w h e th e rth e a s s ig n e e h a d n o tic e o f d is c lo s u r e v io la tio n s . B ec ause P arker’ s c l ai m i s f or re sc i ss i on , the di stri ctshou l d h ave c on si dere d § 1641( c ) i n r e vi e w i ng the pos s i bi l i ty of a s s i gne e l i abi l i ty . T he r e f or e , w e r e m a nd th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e f a c ts a lle g e d a r e s u f

f ic ie n t to st at e acl ai m for r es ci ss i on i n l i gh tof § 1 64 1(c) . CONCL US I ON A l though w e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our ttha tP a rke r ’ s c om pl a i ntdoe s not s u f f i c i e n t l y a l l e g e th a tP o tt e ri s s u b j e c tt o l i ab i l i ty a s a “ c r e d i t o r ” u n d e rth e T I L A, w e r em and for consi dera t i on of w hether P arker’ s c om pl ai ntno nethel es s a l l eges f a c ts s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t ac la im f o rr e s c is s io n u n d e r1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 4 1 ( c ) . V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.