Document: 523 U.S. 410118 S.Ct. 1408140 L.Ed.2d 566 David R. BEACH, et ux., Petitioners,v.OCWEN FEDERAL BANK. No. 97-5310. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 2, 1998. Decided April 21, Syllabus * Petitioners and Linda Beach refinanced their Florida house in 1986 with a loan from Great Western Bank. In 1991, they stopped making mortgage payments, 1992 began this foreclosure proceeding. Respondent bank was thereafter substituted as plaintiff. The Beaches acknowledged default but raised affirmative defenses, alleging, inter alia, that bank's failure to make disclosures required by Truth Lending Act gave them right under 15 U.S.C. §1635 rescind agreement. trial court rejected defense, holding, among other things, any had expired 1989 §1635(f), which provides rescission "shall expire'' three years after closes. State's intermediate appellate affirmed, did Court. That remarked §1635(f)'s plain language evidences an unconditional congressional intent limit distinguished its prior cases permitting recoupment defense ostensibly barred claims involving statutes limitation, not extinguishing rights defensively asserted. Held: A borrower may assert collection action brought lender 3-year period has run. Absent "the clearest language'' contrary, Reiter v. Cooper, 507 258, 264, 113 1213, 1218, 122 604, defendant raise claim recoupment, ""defense arising out some feature transaction upon plaintiff's is grounded,''' Rothensies Electric Storage Battery Co., 329 296, 299, 67 271, 272, 91 L.Ed. 296 (quoting Bull States, 295 247, 262, 55 695, 700, 79 1421), even if applicable statute limitation would otherwise bar independent cause action. however, governs only institution suit; instead, it operates, lapse time, extinguish rescission. section's uncompromising statement borrower's running time manifests completely at end period. absence provision authorizing stands stark contrast §1640(e), expressly Act's 1-year on actions for recovery damages "does . assert[ion of] violation more than one year date matter recoupment.'' This quite different treatment nature must be understood reflect deliberate part Congress, see Bates 522 ----, 118 285, 139 215 makes perfectly good sense. Since statutory could cloud title foreclosure, Congress well have chosen circumscribe risk, while regardless brought. Pp. ____-____. 692 So.2d 146, affirmed. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Bruce S. Rogow, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, petitioners. Carter G. Phillips, Washington, DC, respondent. Justice SOUTER 1 Under Act, 82 Stat. §1601 seq., when made consumer credit secured principal dwelling, agreement fails deliver certain forms or disclose important terms accurately. See §1635. §1635(f) statute, usual case closes sale property, whichever earlier. question here whether consummation transaction. We answer no hold extinguishes 2 declared purpose "to assure meaningful disclosure so will able compare readily various available him avoid uninformed use credit, protect against inaccurate unfair billing card practices.'' §1601(a); Mourning Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 356, 363-368, 93 1652, 1657-1660, 36 318 (1973). Accordingly, requires creditors provide borrowers clear accurate dealing things like finance charges, annual percentage rates interest, rights. §§1631, 1632, 1635, 1638. Failure satisfy subjects criminal penalties noncompliance, §1611, actual traceable lender's requisite disclosures, §1640. Section 1640(e) such "may brought'' within "as set-off'' up. 3 Going beyond these damages, also authorizes whose his "principal dwelling,'' who been denied entirely "until midnight third business day following delivery information section together containing material subchapter, later.'' §1635(a). exercises "is liable charge, security interest given [him], including operation law, becomes void'' §1635(b). Within 20 days receiving notice rescission, "return [borrower] money property earnest money, downpayment, otherwise, shall take necessary appropriate termination created transaction.'' Ibid. provides, expire occurs first,'' never made. §1635(f).1 gives express permission expiration 4 case, petitioners Beach, built Jupiter, Florida, $85,000 construction Fidelity Federal Savings Bank Florida. same year, Bank.2 alleging Act3 §1640 reduce amount damages. 5 Circuit 15th Judicial agreed were entitled "off-set owed Western'' $396.00 $1,000.00 because overstated monthly payment $0.58 charge $201.84. But Beaches' effort §1635, holding issue immune "residential transaction'' (defined §1602(w)) and, alternative, years, 1989. found telling included savings clause revive set-off. 6 Bank, 670 986 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1996), addressed 146 (1997).4 evidence explained distinguishable because, involved 7 Because reading conflicts decisions several courts,5 we granted certiorari, 294, 226 (1997), determine federal law provided revived §1635(f). affirm. II 8 concede institute proceeding lapsed 1989, closed bank, argue restriction governing suit accordingly effect "defense recoupment'' They are, course, correct general defendant's plead "recoupment,'' (1946) 1421 (1935)), survives So long timely, ibid., he longer bring independently, absent ""the language''' contrary. 604 (1993) Pacific 352 59, 71, 77 161, 169, 126 (1956)). As said before, object keeping "stale litigation courts,'' id., 72, S.Ct., distorted applied legitimate timely lawsuit, "are aimed lawsuits, consideration particular issues lawsuits,'' ibid. 9 come up short, rule all. affect rights, is, "whether [it] foundation claim'' "merely remedy enforcement.'' Midstate Horticultural Co. Pennsylvania 320 358-359, n. 4, 64 128, 129-130, 88 96 (1943). "ultimate question'' intended enforceable event prescribed time,'' 360, 130; accord, Burnett New York Central 380 424, 85 1050, 13 941 (1965), instance, apparent Good Samaritan Hospital Shalala, 508 402, 409, 2151, 2156-2157, 124 368 (1993). 10 typical time. So, supra, 263-264, 1217-1218, concluded 49 §11706(c)(2), providing shipper ""must begin civil recover [§11705(b)(3)] two accrues,''' raising recoupment. Note, Developments Law: Statutes Limitations, 63 Harv. L.Rev. 1177, 1179 (1950) (internal quotation marks omitted) (most either "all within'' "no than'' many thereof accrued''); H. Wood, Limitation Actions §1, pp. 2-3 (4th ed. 1916) (" [S]tatutes brought, enforced, unless enforced are limitation''). 11 To sure, held nothing bringing suit, though ambitious classic formulations cited above. Thus, example, Distribution Servs., Ltd. Eddie Parker Interests, 897 F.2d 811 (1990), Fifth §3(6) Carriage Goods Sea counterclaim way despite fierce-sounding carrier ship discharged all liability respect loss damage goods,'' 46 U.S.C.App. §1303(6). 12 1635(f), takes us limits life underlying well. subsection says instead "right [under Act] It talks suit's commencement right's duration, addresses straightforward render seeking superfluous. There reason, then, resort canons resolve doubtful cases, creation meant limited, just remedy. Burnett, 427, 1054 2; Davis Mills, 194 451, 454, 24 692, 693-694, 48 1067 (1904). left less chance (if possible) "expire'' allow, standing alone. useful look ahead provisions Subsection (e) reads person asserting subchapter collect debt occurrence set-off action, except State law.'' §1640(e). Thus deflected claims. this, there being mitigate Indeed, amended 1995 soften restrictions §8, 109 275-276, §§1635(i)(1) (2), (1994 ed., Supp. I), took care liberality "subject [three year] (f),'' hope further slim promise §1635(i)(3), " [n]othing affects consumer's 276.6 receive unmistakably treatments, normal Congress. 290, (1997) ("""[W]here includes omits another generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion.''''') Russello 464 16, 23, 104 300-301, 78 17 (1983), turn quoting Wong Kim Bo, 472 720, 722 (C.A.5 1972)). And distinction thus indicated Board Governors Reserve System, Annual Report Year 1971, p. 19 (Jan. 3, 1972); National Commission Consumer Finance, Credit 189-190 (Dec.1972). 14 Congress's manifest concluding permits rescind, affirm judgment ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 499. limited extension (1) agency empowered enforce institutes transaction, (2) finds section, (3) obligor's based whole proceeding.'' circumstances, earlier conclusion proceeding, judicial review thereof, Ocwen plaintiff pending court. Specifically, claimed failed properly accurately financed, §1638(a)(3); rate, §1638(a)(4); (4) number, amounts, timing payments scheduled repay obligation, §1638(a)(6); (5) total §1638(a)(5). Although per curiam posed [u]nder law,'' So.2d, 147, state inapposite unavailable years. See, e.g., re Barsky, 210 B.R. 683 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1997); Botelho, 195 558 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1996); Shaw, 178 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J.1994); Deposit Ins. Corp. Ablin, 177 Ill.App.3d 390, Ill.Dec. 694, 532 N.E.2d 379 (1988); Community Nat. Trust N.Y. McClammy, 525 N.Y.S.2d 629, 138 App.Div.2d 339 Dawe Merchants Mortgage Corp., P.2d 796 (Colo.1984) (en banc). before purports grounds relevant occasion explore how might work outside

Category: 7