Section 1635(g) Of TILA Does Not Replace The One Year Statute Of Limitations On Damage Claims Period With A Three Year Limitations Period

In Douglas v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., No. 09 C 1370. (N.D.Ill., November 18, 2009) the mortgagor argued that despite not being brought within the time allowed under TILA her damage claim survived by virtue of 15 U.S.C. §1635(g). That provision reads in any action in which it is determined that a creditor has violated this section, in addition to rescission the court may award relief under section 1640 of this title for violations of this subchapter not relating to the right to rescind. From this language she asserts that the three year limitations period applies to all TILA violations. She relied on _Washington v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co._, 2006 WL 1980201 (N.D.Ill.2006), which adopt[ed] the reasoning of a District of Massachusetts case”, _ McIntosh v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co._ , 215 F.R.D. 26, 30 (D.Mass.2003) that ruled just that way. The district court noted that the holding in McIntosh has been drawn into question by other cases in its own district. Those cases have held that for TILA damages claims the one year statute of limitations period is not replaced by the three year limitations period. It joined those decisions in concluding that the one-year statute of limitations in Section 1640(e) applies to TILA damages claims.

Download Related Document