Court refuses to impose liability for damages and attorney’s fees on an assignee who was not responsible for and who had no notice of TILA disclosure violations at the time of an assignment

We had some good news this month though. In an issue we have been tracking because we have often advanced it – unsuccessfully – here in Illinois, (See _Payton v. New Century Mortgage Corp._, 2003 WL 22349118 (N.D.Ill.2003) and _Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Jenkins_, 225 F.Supp.2d 910 (N.D.Ill.2002)) a District Court in Florida determined that under TILA an assignee who loses a rescission claim is not liable for the Plaintiff’s attorneys fees. The court in Parker v. Potter, 8:06-cv-183 -T-26EAJ (October 22, 2008) found the Plaintiff was entitled to rescind the loan due to TILA violations occurring at the loan’s origination. It rejected the contention that the Plaintiff was also entitled to fees from the assignee because there was no record evidence that the assignee was responsible for and had notice of the disclosure violations. It relied on Brodo v. Bankers Trust Co., 847 F.Supp. 353, 359 (E.D.Pa.1994) where that court observed that [a]pparently Congress did not wish to impose liability for damages and attorney’s fees on an assignee who was not responsible for and who had no notice of TILA disclosure violations at the time of an assignment.

Author

  • Solomon Maman

    Solomon has nearly two decades of experience representing financial institutions, real estate investors and privately owned business entities. Solomon concentrates his practice in the areas of banking, consumer financial services, real estate, business law and related litigation and appellate practice.

Download Related Document