For the Doubters on TILA Rescission and Jesinoski READ THIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WILLIAM J. PAATALO,
Plaintiff,

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
Defendant.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01420-AA
__________________________

OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01420-AA    Document 12    Filed 11/12/15    Page 11 of 18

Defendant argues this reading of Jesinoski cannot be correct
because it means “a borrower’s mere notice of rescission  . . .
automatically converts a secured lender into an unsecured lender,
leaving the lender with no other remedy{?!} but to file suit to
challenge the validity of a borrower’s rescission.”
…..The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant’s
argument when it declared “rescission is effected” at the time of
notice, without regard to whether a borrower files a lawsuit within
the three-year period.

PAGE 11 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01420-AA    Document 12    Filed 11/12/15    Page 18 of 18

The timing of Jesinoski is also significant. Although
foreclosing trustees and purchasers at trustee’s sales have a
significant interest in finality, consumers have a countervailing
interest in avoiding wrongful foreclosure. Jesinoski revealed the
majority of federal courts had “misinterpreted the will of the
enacting Congress,” Rivers, 511 U.S. at 313 n.12, in allocating to
borrowers the burden to go to court to enforce their statutory
rescission rights under TILA. Further factual development is
necessary to determine what effect that revelation should have on
the property rights of subsequent buyers of the property.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied with leave for defendant to
renew its arguments about the effect of the trustee’s sale.

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is DENIED. Defendant’s
request for oral argument is DENIED as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th Day November 2015.