In Bonney v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 08-30087 (D. Mass., Feb. 9, 2009) the Plaintiffs obtained a debt consolidation loan from Defendant’s predecessor which was secured by their residence. In connection with that loan they were provided a Notice of Right to Cancel which did not specify the date of the transaction or the date the rescission period expired. Nearly three years later, the Plaintiffs sent Defendant a rescission request based upon the allegedly deficient Notice which the Defendant denied. Plaintiff brought suit for rescission and damages. The court dismissed the case finding that the defect in the Notice was a purely technical violation of TILA, in circumstances where the Notice was in fact quite clear, could not provide the foundation for a statutory claim. Recognizing that TILA requires hyper-technical compliance, the court relied on several cases that rejected TILA claims where there was a technical violation in the disclosures. The court concluded that the omission of a transaction date from the form would not be confusing to an average borrower, whether considered alone or in conjunction with the other omission citing unreported cases which have reached the identical result.
Author
-
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.
