Points of Interest Spring 2019 Page 7 Points of Interest Spring 2019 Page 7 continued on page 8 F or years, mortgage lenders defended TILA rescission actions by arguing that the notice of rescission or action was untimely and/or barred by applicable statute of limitation. In 2015, the U.S.SupremeCourtdealtlender’seffortsasevere blow when it held that the notice of rescission could be issued at any time within three (3) years after the loan closed, not file suit to rescind within three years, as the industry had argued (Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015). Just recently on December 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that further weakened the lenders’ position (Hoang v. Bank ofAmerica,N.A., F.3d,Case No.17-35993,2018WL 6367268 (9th Cir. 2018)). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit expanded the time for a borrower to sue to enforce rescission of a loan if a lender fails to wind up the loan after a notice of rescission. Ninth Circuit Expands Time for a Borrower to Sue to Enforce Rescission of a Loan Under TILA Under the Truth in Lending Action (“TILA”), borrowershavetherighttorescindcertain loans within three business days after consummation of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). However,ifthelenderfailstomake the required disclosures under TILA, the deadline for borrowers to rescind the loan expandstothreeyearsfromconsummation of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f). In its’ 2015 Jesinoski decision the Supreme Court held that under TILA, a borrower only has to notify a lender of his or her intent to rescind within three years. The borrower is not required to bring suit within the three years to effectuate the rescission. A simple notice is all that is required. The by Robert T. Finlay, Esq. Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP by Michael S. Kelley, Esq. Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP