Case Name: Eddison WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-19
Citations: 461 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 11-11973
Parties: Eddison WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HUNT, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
Eddison WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-11973.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 19, 2012.
Earl Price Underwood, Jr., Attorney at Law, Fairhope, AL, James Taylor Patterson, Kenneth J. Riemer, Attorney at Law, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John David Collins, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defen-danb-Appellee.
Before BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HUNT, District Judge.
Honorable Willis B. Hunt, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eddison Walters appeals the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of his claim that Lime Financial Services, Ltd. ("Lime") violated the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), by failing to complete two dates on Lime's form disclosing Walters' right to rescind the mortgage immediately after the transaction. Walters argues that these omissions violated TILA by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous notice" of "[t]he date the rescission period expires" and therefore Walter could rescind his mortgage with Lime, nearly three years after the initial transaction. 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(b)(l)(v).
We have held that "TILA does not require perfect notice; rather it requires a clear and conspicuous notice of rescission rights." Veale v. Citibank, F.S.B., 85 F.3d 577, 580 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198, 117 S.Ct. 1556, 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997). We are satisfied that the district court did not err in concluding that the form at issue in its totality provided reasonable notice of the date the rescission period expired.
AFFIRMED.