Claim That Violations Were Apparent On The Face Of The Disclosures Means That Violations Were Also Apparent For Equitable Tolling Purposes

In an attempt to invoke the equitable tolling doctrine on a TILA damage claim against an assignee the plaintiff in Conder v. Home Sav. of Am., CV 077051AGCT (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2010) alleged that the disclosures provided to him before his loan closed violated TILA by failing to adequately explain the nature of his loan. But he also alleged that the violations … are objectively and reasonably apparent on the face of the documents provided to Plaintiff and Class Members, because the disclosures provided can be determined to be incomplete and inaccurate by a comparison among the [Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement], the other disclosure statements, and the Note. The court found that the allegation that the violations were objectively and reasonably apparent on the face of the documents defeated plaintiff’s equitable tolling argument. The reason being that a reasonable plaintiff would have known of the existence of a possible claim within the limitations period if the violations were objectively and reasonably apparent on the face of the documents received at the loan closing. The court was not convinced by the plaintiff’s argument that by alleging that the violations were objectively and reasonably apparent on the face of the loan documents he was alleging that the TILA violations were apparent to professionals, not to a lay person like [Plaintiff]. But ignorance of TILA or lack of sufficient expertise to understand loan terms is not sufficient to apply the equitable tolling doctrine.

Download Related Document