# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 34 37

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Alan G. Keiran ; M ary Ja ne Keir an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Hom e Cap it al , Inc .; BAC Hom e Loa ns Serv ic in g, L.P.; Ban k o f New Yor k
Mel lo n, as Trus te e fo r th e Hol de rs of C W ABS, In c., Ass et -Bac ke d C ert ifi cat es ,

Seri es 20 07 -6 ; J oh n a nd Jan e Doe s 1 -1 0

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 7 , 20 17
Fil ed : J un e 2 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, BEAM, an d M URPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Thi s Trut h in Len di ng Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 16 01 -1 66 7f

, cas e is be fo re ou r

co ur t on th e Keir an s' at te m pt to res ci nd th ei r 20 06 m or tg ag e. The Keir an s ap pe al th edi st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of a le nd in g b a n k a n d it s lo an 1

se rv ic er (c ol le ct iv el y , th e b an k) . W e affi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND

On Decem

be r 30

, 20 06

, th e Keir an s an d Hom e Cap it al

, In c. ex ecu te d a 2

p r o mi s s o r y no te in th e am ou nt of $4 04 ,00 0 in ex ch an ge fo r a m or tg ag e up on real

pr op ert y lo cat ed in Lak ev il le

, Mi nn es ot a. The Keir an s st op pe d m ak in g pa y m en ts on

th e no te in Nov em

be r 20 08

. On Octo be r 8, 20 09

, th e Keir an s se nt res ci ss io n no ti ces

to th e ba nk al le gi ng th at th e Keir an s di d no t rece iv e su ffi ci en t cop ie s of dis cl os ur es

req ui red by the TILA at t he Decem be r 20 06 clo si ng . On Jan ua ry 7, 2 01 0, t he ba nk

in fo rm ed th e Keir an s th at no ba si s for resc is si on ex is te d. On Octo be r 29

, 20 10

, th e
Keir an s fil ed th e cu rren t act io n se ek in g res ci ss i on of th e m or tg ag e lo an , m on ey
da m ag es an d a de cl arat or y ju d g men t vo id in g th e ba nk 's se cu rit y in te res t in th e
Keir an s' m or tg ag e lo an

.

The ba nk m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t g r a n t e d,

ho ld in g th at th e cl ai m s fo r m on ey da m ag es fo r TILA d efi ci en ci e s were ba rred by a

on e-year st at ut e of li m it at io ns ; th at th e cl ai m fo r res ci ss io n was ba rred by th e th reeye a r st at ut e of rep os e; an d th at th e cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es fo r refu sa l to res ci n d

fai le d be cau se th ere were no ev id en tl y d e fic ie nt TILA no ti ces in th e Keir an s'

pa pe rwo rk at cl os in g. W e affi rm ed

, ho ld in g in rel ev an t pa rt th at t h e K e i ran s were

req ui red to act ua ll y fil e su it fo r res ci ss io n wit hi n th ree y ears , rat he r th an jus t gi vi ng

no ti ce of th ei r in te nt to res ci nd

. Keir an v. Hom e Cap it al

, In c., 72 0 F.3 d 72 1, 72 8- 29

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Mi nn es ot a.

The or ig in al le nd in g ba nk was na m ed as a de fen da nt in th is la wsu it bu t was 2

ne ve r se rv ed

. By th e ti m e of th e res ci ss io n no ti ce se nt in 20 09

, th e cu rren t de fen da nt ba nk an d l oa n s erv ic er h ad tak en ov er t he Keir an s' l oa n a cco un t.

-2

-(8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), va cat ed

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 11 52 (2 01 5) (m em .). W e al so up he ld th e di st ric t

co ur t's de ci si on on m on ey da m ag es , fin di n g t h a t th e Keir an s were no t en ti tl ed to

m on ey da m ag es be cau se an y al le ge d de fect s were no t ap pa ren t on th e face of th e lo an
do cu m en ts

, th us ab so lv in g th e as si gn ee ba nk s fro m an y de fect s whi ch oc cu rred at th e

or ig in al cl os in g. Id

. at 73 0. The Su pr em e Co ur t g ran te d c ert io rari in a si m il ar case

to res ol ve a sp li t in th e ci rcu it s ov er whe th er no ti c e o r th e act ua l fil in g of a la wsu it

was req ui red to effe ct res ci ss io n wit hi n th e th ree- y ear st at ut e of rep os e. The Co ur t

de ci de d th at no ti ce of res ci ss io n, rat he r th an fil in g su it

, is al l th at i s r e qu ire d.

Je si no sk i v. Co un trywide Hom e Loa ns , In c., 13 5 S. Ct

. 79 0 (2 01 5)

. The reaf te r, th e

Co ur t gr an te d th e Keir an s' pe ti ti on fo r cert io rari

, va cat ed ou r op in io n an d rem an de d

in li gh t of it s Je si no sk i de ci si on

. 13 5 S. Ct

. 11 52

. On th e Su pr em e Co ur t's rem an d,

we rem an de d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n.

Befo re th e di st ric t co ur t, bo th pa rti es ag ai n m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The

Keir an s arg ue d th at th ey were en ti tl ed to res ci ss io n be cau s e ( 1 ) t he ba nk di d no t

pr ov id e th em wit h th e req ui red am ou nt of TILA di sc lo su re st at em en ts ; (2 ) th e
di sc lo su re st at eme n t s co nt ai ne d m at eri al in accu raci es reg ard in g fin an ce ch arg es

as so ci at ed wit h t he lo an ; an d (3 ) th e b an k d id no t t im el y an d a de qu at el y

res po nd to

th ei r Octo be r 20 09 no ti ce of res ci ss io n. Th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t for th e ba nk

, ho ld in g th at th e Keir an s di d no t reb ut th e pr es um pt io n in 15

U.S.C. § 16 35 (c) (s ta ti ng th at if a co ns um er ack no wled ge s in writ in g th at he ha s

rece iv ed th e req ui red di sc lo su res , "a reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n of de li ve ry " ari se s) th at

th ey rece iv ed al l of th e di sc lo su res req ui red by la w. The co ur t fo un d th at th e Keir an s'

se lf- se rv in g a f

f i d a v i t s to th e co nt rary were no t ad eq ua te to reb ut th e pr es um pt io n.
The di st ric t co ur t al so reject ed th e arg um en t th at th e di sc lo su re st a t e men ts were

m at eri al ly in accu rat e. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at be cau se no vi ol at io ns of th e

TILA oc cu rred

, th e ba nk was no t req ui red to res po nd to th e no ti ce of res ci ss io n– th e rig ht of res ci ss io n ex pi red th ree da y s aft er cl os in g in Decem be r 20 06 (in st ead of th ree

y ears lat er) b ecau se no vi ol at io n o ccu rred . Id. § 16 35 (a), (f ). The Kei ran s ap pe al

.

-3

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

Co ng res s en act ed th e TILA "t o as su re a m ean in gf ul di sc lo su re of cred it te rm s

so th at th e co ns um er w i l l be ab le to co m pa re m or e read il y th e va rio us cred it te rm s

av ai la bl e to hi m an d av oi d th e un in fo rm ed us e of cr e d i t

. " I d

. § 16 01 (a). Co ur ts

br oa dl y c o n s t r u e th e TILA in fav or of co ns um ers

. Ran d Co rp

. v. Yer So ng Mo ua , 55 9 F .3d 84 2, 8 45 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) . In t ran sa ct io ns sec ur ed by a p rin ci pa l d well in g,

th e TILA gi ve s bo rro wers an un co nd it io na l th ree- da y rig ht to res ci nd

. 15 U.S.C. §§

16 35 (a) (res ci ss io n as to or ig in al le nd ers ); 16 41 (c) (ex te nd in g res ci s s i o n to

as si gn ees ). The th ree- da y res ci ss io n pe rio d be gi n s u po n th e co ns um m at io n of th e

tra ns act io n or th e de li ve ry of th e req ui red res ci ss io n no ti ces an d di sc lo su res , whi ch ev er oc cu rs la st

. Id . § 16 35 (a). R e q u i red di sc lo su res m us t be m ad e to "ea ch

co ns um er who se own ers hi p in te res t is or wil l be su bjec t to th e se cu rit y in te res t" an d

m us t in cl ud e two co pi es of a no ti ce of t h e r i g h t to res ci nd

, se e 12 C.F.R. §

10 26 .23 (a), (b )(1 ), an d a TILA di sc lo su re s ta te m en t, o ut li ni ng :

th e an nu al pe rce nta ge rat e, th e m et ho d of de te rm in in g th e fin an ce ch arg e

an d th e ba la nc e up on whi ch a fin an ce ch arg e wil l be im po se d, th e

a m ou nt of th e fin an ce ch arg e, th e am ou nt to be fin an ced

, th e to ta l o f

pa y m en ts , t he nu m

be r an d a m ou nt of pa y m en ts , [ an d] t he du e da te s or
pe rio ds of p ay m en ts sch ed ul ed to rep ay th e in de bt ed ne ss

.

15 U.S.C. § 16 02 (u ). The se di sc lo su res m us t be m ad e "cl earl y an d co ns pi cu ou sl y in

writ in g, in a fo rm th at th e co ns um er m ay ke ep ." 12 C.F.R. § 1 0 2 6

. 17 (a)( 1)

. If th e
cred it or f a i l s t o m ak e th e req ui red di sc lo su res or res ci ss io n no ti ces , th e bo rro wer's

"ri gh t of r es ci ss io n sh al l ex pi re th ree y ears aft er th e da te of co ns um m at io n of th e

tra ns act io n." 15 U.S.C. § 1 63 5( f); se e 1 2 C .F.R. § 1 02 6.2 3( a)(3 )(i ). Howev er, an d

im po rta nt ly in th is cas e, if no di sc lo su re vi ol at io n oc cu rs , "t he rig ht to res ci nd is no t

ex te nd ed fo r th ree y ears an d in st ead e n d s at th e cl os e of th e th ree- da y win do w
fo ll owi ng co ns um m at io n of th e lo an tra ns act io n." Keir an , 72 0 F.3 d at 73 0 n.8

. If th e
Keir an s can es ta b l i sh th at th ei r TILA rig ht s at cl os in g were vi ol at ed

, th ei r rig ht of

-4

-res ci ss io n ex pi red Decem be r 30

, 20 09

, an d th ei r Octo be r 8, 20 09

, no ti ce of res ci ss io n

to th e ba nk was ti m el y

. If the y can no t est ab li sh a vi ol at io n, th ei r rig ht of res ci ss io n

ex pi red in earl y

Jan ua ry 20 07 , th ree d ay s af

te r th e Dece m

be r 30 , 20 06 , clo si ng

.

A. Num ber o f Dis cl os ure S ta tements

The Keir an s fir st arg ue th at th ey are en ti tl ed to res ci ss io n be cau se th ey di d no t

each rece iv e a co py of a TILA di sc lo su re st at em en t as req ui red in 12 C.F.R. §

10 26 .17 (a)( 1) , (d) . Howev er, i f a co ns um er ac kn owl ed ge s i n wri ti ng th at he or s he

di d rece iv e a req ui red di sc lo su re, th is crea te s " a reb ut ta bl e p res um pt io n o f de li ve ry

th ereo f." 15 U.S.C. § 16 35 (c). It is un di sp ut e d t h a t b ot h of th e Keir an s si gn ed an
ack no wled gm en t st at in g th at th ey each rece iv ed a co m pl et e co py of th e di sc l os ur e

st a t e men t t ha t th ey were en ti tl ed to by th e TILA. Thi s ev id en ce gi ve s ris e to th e
reb ut ta bl e pr es um

pt io n in § 16 35 (c). In affi da vi ts su bm it te d in res po ns e to th e ba nk 's

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n an d in su pp or t of th ei r own su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n,

th e Keir an s st at e th at th ey r e c e i v e d o n l y on e co py, in st ead of two

, of a TILA

di sc lo su re st at em en t. Keir an s arg ue th at th ei r affi da vi ts reb ut th e pr es um pt io n th at

th ey rece iv ed th e req ui red no ti ces , an d th eref or e th ere is a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al

fact on th is is su e. Th e b a n k arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y he ld th at th e
Keir an s' co nc lu so ry affi da v i ts do no t se rv e to reb ut th e pr es um pt io n. In su pp or t of

th ei r arg um en ts th at th e pe rs on al affi da vi ts are su ffi ci en t, th e Keir an s ci te ou r op in io n

in Ban k o f Am eri ca, N.A. v. Pet ers on , 74 6 F .3d 35 7 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ).

In Pet ers on , th e pl ai nt iff s cl os ed on a ho m e m or tg ag e refi na nc e lo an in

Decem be r 20 06

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, in Ja nu ary 20 07

, Ms

. Pet ers on cal le d th e ba nk

t o req ue st co pi es of req ui red TILA cl os in g do cu m en ts

, al le gi ng th e co up le ha d no t

rece iv ed th em at cl os in g. The b a n k t h e r e aft er se nt th e Pet ers on s two le tt ers , bo th

da te d Ja nu ary 31

, 20 07

. One of th e le tt ers st at ed th at th e TILA di sc lo su re st at em en t

di d no t accu rat el y refl ect th e an nu al pe rcen ta ge rat e or th e fin an ce char ge rel at ed to

th ei r lo an

. A ch eck fo r ap pr ox im at el y $8 ,00 0 was en cl os ed wit h th e le tt er to co rrec t

-5

-th e erro r, bu t th e ba nk st il l d id no t s en d s ig ne d c op ie s o f th e TILA st at em en ts

. The

Pet ers on s cas he d th e ch eck

. The ot he r le tt er in fo rm ed th e Pet ers on s th at th e or ig in al

"No ti ce of Ri gh t to Can cel " ha d fai le d to pr ov id e th e co rrec t ti m e fram e wit hi n whi ch

to can cel th e lo an , an d th is le tt er pro vi de d two ne w co pi es of th e Not ic e o f Ri gh t to

Can cel

. The le tt er al so req ue st ed th at th e Pet ers on s ex ecu te th e no ti ces an d ret ur n a
si gn ed co py to th e ba nk

. The Pet ers on s de ni ed ev er rece iv in g th is se co nd le tt er or th e

no ti ces

. Id

. at 35 8- 59

. The Pet ers on s ul ti m at el y fel l beh in d o n th ei r lo an pa y m en ts

in Ju ne 20 09

. Als o aro un d th is ti m e, th e ba nk di sc ov ered th at th e or ig in al m or tg ag e

ex ecu te d i n Dec em

be r 20 06 ha d n ot ev er b een pr op erl y reco rd ed

. Id . a t 3 59 . Thu s

in Octo be r 20 0 9

, t h e ba nk se nt a le tt er to th e Pet ers on s as ki ng th em to ex ecu te a
du pl ic at e or ig in al m or tg ag e. Th e P et ers on s refu se d, an d in st ead

, by a le tt er da te d

Octo be r 27

, 20 09

, req ue st ed res ci ss io n o f t h e l oa n be cau se of th e ba nk 's fai lu re to

pr ov id e th e req ui red TILA di sc lo su res . Id.

In th e ev en tu al la wsu it

, th e Pet ers on s as se rte d th at th ei r no ti ce of r e s c i s s i o n

was ti m el y , ev en th ou gh th ey ha d no t fil ed su it

. The di st ric t co ur t di sa gr eed

, an d on

ap pe al

, whi ch was de ci de d aft er ou r fir st Keir an de ci si on bu t be fo re th e Su pr em e

Co ur t's de ci si on in Je si no sk i, we affi rm ed th e de ni al of th e rig ht t o r e s c is si on as

un ti m el y

. Id

. at 36 0. Howev er, in ad jud ic at in g th e Pet ers on s' fai lu re

- t o

- r e s c in d 3

cl ai m , we co ns id ered whe th er to cred it th e Pet ers on s' te st im on y an d affi da vi ts ab ou t

th e ev en ts an d co rres po nd en ce th at oc cu rred in Ja nu ary 2 0 0 7 sh or tl y aft er cl os in g.

W e fo un d th at th e Pet ers on s ha d of fere d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at th e ba nk di d no t

de li ve r th e req ui si te do cu m en ts an d de ni ed th e ba nk 's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

Id

. at 3 6 1

. We th en ci te d two cas es whi ch st an d fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e

pr es um pt io n of de li ve ry can be reb ut te d ba se d on th e bo rro wer's affi da vi t al on e. Id

. (ci ti ng St ut zk a v. McC arv il le

, 42 0 F.3 d 75 7, 76 2- 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ); an d Cap pu cci o

v. Pr im e Cap it al Fu nd in g LLC, 6 49 F.3d 18 0, 1 89 -9 0 (3 d C ir. 2 01 1) ).

Thi s po rti on of th e op in io n ha s al rea d y b e en va cat ed in li gh t of Je si no sk i. 3

Ban k o f Am ., N.A. v. Pe te rs on , 78 2 F .3d 10 49 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

-6

-The rem ark ab le fact ua l sc en ari o in Pet ers on –wh erei n th e ba nk de m on st r at ed

it s la ck of TILA di li ge nc e on m or e th an on e oc cas io n an d m em or ia li zed th os e la ps es

in let te rs to th e de bt or

–i s n ot pre se nt in th is cas e. Als o, t he Pet ers on de bt or s b eg an

as ki ng fo r th e req ui red do cu m en ts le ss th an a m on th aft er cl os in g, in st ead of se ve ral

y ears la te r. Th e te st im on y in th e in st an t cas e in vo lv es th e Keir an s' ne arl y id en ti cal

co nc lu so ry affi da vi ts da te d May 27

, 20 15

, m or e th an ei gh t years aft er th e 20 06

cl os in g. Co ur ts ha ve he ld th at a bo rro wer's own co nc lu so ry de ni al of recei pt of th e

TILA di sc lo su res , un acco m pa ni ed by de ta il s or ot he r ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e de ni al

su ch as was p res en t i n P et ers on , is in su ffi ci en t t o re bu t t he pre su m pt io n o f de li ve ry

c reat ed by § 16 35 (c). E.g., W il li am s v. Fi rs t Gov 't Mo rtg

. & In ve st or s Co r p

. , 2 2 5

F.3 d 73 8, 75 1 (D.C. Ci r. 20 00 ); se e al so McC art hy v. Opt io n One Mo rtg

. Co rp ., 36 2 4

F.3 d 10 08

, 10 11 -1 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (h ol di ng in th e no n- TILA co nt ex t th at ev id en ce

of reg ul ar of

fic e pr oc ed ur es ga ve ris e to a pr es um pt io n of de li ve ry th at co ul d no t be

reb ut te d by a m ere den ia l of recei pt ). Alt ho ug h St ut zk a he ld to th e co nt rary, it

, li ke

Pet ers on , in vo l v e d ex tra or di na ry fact s, an d m or e im po rta nt ly in cl ud ed th e di st ric t

co ur t ' s s p e ci fic fact ua l fin di ng th at th e pl ai nt iff "was no t gi ve n he r co pi es of th e
cl os in g do cu m en ts ." 42 0 F .3d at 7 62 . Nor d o we t hi nk th at Cap pu cci o can be read

to st an d fo r th e pr op os it io n th at an y m an ne r of affi da vi t can reb ut th e § 16 35 (c)

pr es um pt io n an d de feat a m ot io n fo r su m m ar y jud gm en t. Fi na ll y , it is bl ack le tt er

su m m ary jud gm en t la w th a t a co nc lu so ry , se lf- se rv in g affi da vi t wil l no t de feat an

ot he rwis e m eri to rio us su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Ch av ero -Lin ares v. Sm it h, 78 2

F.3 d 10 38

, 10 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). The Keir an s ha ve no t de m on st rat ed a ge nu in e is su e

A l t ho ug h th e de ni al of rece ip t in W il li am s was m ad e du rin g tri al te st im on y 4

rat he r th an on a su m

m ary jud gm en t reco rd

, th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a Co ur t of App eal s

no ne th el es s he ld th at th e pl ai nt iff di d no t mee t hi s bu rd en of reb ut ti ng th e
pr es um pt io n. 2 25 F.3d at 7 51

.

-7

-of m at eri al fact reg ard in g whe th er th ey rece iv ed on ly on e no ti ce. Acco rd in gl y , th e 5

th ree- da y res ci ss io n wi nd ow o f § 1 63 5( a) b ars th e Kei ran s' re qu es t fo r res ci ss io n.

B. Accur ac y o f Dis cl os ure S ta tements

The Keir an s ne xt arg ue th at th ey are en ti tl ed to res ci ss io n be cau s e cert ai n

fin an ce char ge s in cl ud ed in th e d is cl os ur e st at em en ts were m at eri al ly in accu rat e. A

fin an ce ch arg e is tre at ed as accu rat e if "t he am ou nt di sc lo se d as th e fi n a n c e c ha rg e
do es no t va ry fro m t h e act ua l fin an ce ch arg e by m or e th an an am ou nt eq ua l to

on e-h al f of on e pe rcen t of th e to ta l am ou nt of cred it ex te nd ed

. " Beu ke s v. GMAC

Mo rtg

., LLC, 78 6 F.3 d 64 9, 65 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng 15 U.S.C. § 16 05 (f)(2 )(A));

se e al so 12 C.F.R. § 1 02 6.2 3( g) (1 ) (d es cri bi ng th at am ou nt s wi th in on e-h al f of on e

pe rcen t of th e accu rat e am ou nt sh al l be co ns i de red accu rat e). The Keir an s were

ex te nd e d $ 40 4,0 00 in cred it

, an d th ey are th us en ti tl ed to res ci ss io n if th e fin an ce
ch arg es in cl ud ed in th e d is cl os ur e st at em en t v ari ed by m or e th an $2 ,02 0 from wha t

th ey sh ou ld ha ve be en

. The ba nk , h owe ve r, arg ue s t ha t t he Keir an s rai se th is is su e

f o r th e fir st ti m e in th is ap pe al

, th at accu racy of th e st at em en ts was pr ev io u s l y
de ci de d i n t h e ba nk 's fav or , an d th eref or e th at th e la w-o f-t he -cas e an d waiv er
do ct rin es pr ecl ud e th is arg um en t. The Keir an s di d no t rai se an y sp eci fic ob jecti on s

to th e accu racy o f t he di sc lo su re st at em en t du rin g th e fir st su m m ary jud gm en t

pr oc eed in gs be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t or th is co ur t. W he n th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at

th e s t a t e ment s were accu rat e in th e fir st ro un d of pr oc eed in gs , th e Keir an s di d no t

W e f u r t h e r reject th e Keir an s' arg um en t th at th e ba nk is jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed 5

fro m arg ui ng th at th e si gn ed ack no wled gm en t crea te s th e reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n th at th ey bo th rece iv ed th e req ui red st at em en ts

. The Keir an s as se rt th at th is is so be cau se i n earl ie r st ag es of th is li ti ga ti on , th e ba nk arg ue d th at ev en if th e Keir a n s h a d

rece iv ed on ly on e co py, th is wou ld ha ve be en le g a l l y su ffi ci en t. W e fin d th at th e el em e n t s o f jud ic ia l es to pp el are no t m et ba se d up on th e ba nk 's pr io r li ti ga ti on
arg um en ts

. See New Ham ps hi re v. Mai ne , 53 2 U.S. 74 2, 75 0- 51 (2 00 1) (s et ti ng fo rth
th e el em en ts of jud ic ia l es to pp el ). Hav in g ad jud ic at ed bo th cas es , w e fin d th at th e ba nk ha s n ot tak en in co ns is te nt po si ti on s ab ou t i ts TILA ob li ga ti on s.

-8

-ch al le ng e th at fin di ng on ap pe al

. W e ag ree t ha t t hi s p art ic ul ar fi nd in g i s t he law o f

th e cas e, an d fu rth er th at th e Keir an s' al le ga ti on s are waiv ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Kres s,

58 F.3 d 37 0, 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) ("Wher e a pa rty co ul d ha ve rai se d an is su e in a pr io r

ap pe al bu t di d no t, a co ur t la te r he ari ng th e sa m e cas e ne ed no t co ns id er th e m at te r.").

Howev er, ev en if th e arg um en t was no t waiv ed

, th e Keir an s can no t pr ev ai l on

th is po in t. The Keir an s al le ge th e fo ll o w i ng erro rs on th e st at em en t: th ey cl ai m a

ha zard in su ran ce pr em iu m ch arg e li st ed as $1 ,95 5 sh ou ld ha ve be en fo r on ly $1 ,20 5;

th ey al so ch al le ng e va r i o u s f e es ch arg ed by th e or ig in al le nd er. The y al le ge th es e

a mou nt s ad de d to ge th er to ta l $2 ,17 2.4 0. Howev er, th e in su ran ce pr em iu m to ta l

sh ou ld be su bt ract ed fro m th at am ou nt be cau se in su ran ce pr em iu m s are no t on e of th e
ch arg es ex pr es sl y in cl ud ed in th e st at ut e, 15 U.S.C. § 16 05 (c) (s ta ti ng th at pr em iu m s

fo r pr op ert y da m ag e in su ran ce m ay be ex cl ud ed fro m th e to ta l fin an ce char ge if th e
bo rro wer is no ti fie d he m ay ob ta in in su ran ce of hi s or her cho ic e). In th is cas e, it is

un di sp ut ed th at th e Keir an s were so ad vi se d ab ou t th e i r r ig ht s to ob ta in in su ran ce.

Pl us , th e al le ge d erro r is act ua ll y a la rg er an d no t sm al le r ch arg e, an d is th eref or e no t

a vi ol at io n. See 12 C.F.R. § 10 26 .23 (g )(1 )(i i) (ex pl ai ni ng th at an in accu rac y i s

to le rat ed if th e in accu racy is "g reat er th an th e am ou nt req ui red to b e d i s cl os ed ").

W it ho ut th is am ou nt , t he to ta l fal ls well be lo w t he $2 ,02 0 th res ho ld

. Acco rd in gl y 6

th is arg um en t in fav or of a TILA vi ol at io n, were it no t waiv ed or al read y de ci de d in

fav or of t he ba nk , is wit ho ut m eri t.

C. Res po ns e to the No tic e o f Res ci ss io n

Fi na ll y , th e Keir an s arg ue th at th e ba nk 's se cu rit y in te res t is vo id be cau se th e
ba nk fai le d to ad eq ua te ly an d ti m el y res po nd to th ei r no ti ce of res ci ss io n in Octo be r

W e al so reject th e Keir an s' arg um en t th at an accu racy th res ho ld of $3 5 ap pl ie s 6

as se t fo rth in 15 U.S.C. § 16 35 (i) (2 ), fo r th e sa m e reas on as th e di st ric t co ur t. See
8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

-9

-20 09

. W he n a bo rro wer ex erci se s a rig ht to res ci nd

, th e le nd er m us t ret ur n to th e
bo rro wer "a ny m on ey

or p ro pe rty giv en " wi th in twen ty day s. 1 5 U.S.C. § 1 63 5( b)

. The Keir an s arg ue th at be cau se th e ba nk di d no t ad eq ua te ly res po nd to th ei r no ti ce
wit hi n twen ty da y s, th e res ci ss io n to ok effe ct twen ty da y s fro m ba nk 's rece ip t of th e

no ti ce. Th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d t ha t beca us e th e Keir an s di d no t sh ow th at th e b an k

vi ol at ed th e TILA at cl os in g, th e Keir an s' rig ht to res ci nd di d no t ex te nd be y on d th e

th ree- da y pe rio d un de r § 16 35 (a). The effi cacy of th is cl ai m co m pl et el y de pe nd s on
whe th er the re was a TILA di sc lo su re v io la ti on . As di sc us se d a bo ve , th ere was no t.

Bec au se th e Keir an s ha d no m or e th an th e th ree- da y win do w to res ci nd an d th e
win do w clo se d i n e arl y

20 07 , th is cla im

is wit ho ut m eri t.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e ba nk

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-