Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

In 1968, Congress passed the Truth in Lending Act to help consumers "avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing."82 Stat. 146, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). The Act gives borrowers the unconditional right to rescind loans within three days of consummation of the loan, after which they may rescind only if the lender failed to satisfy the Act’s disclosure requirements.Jesinoski, slip op. at 2. However, even if lenders never provide the required disclosures, borrowers only retain the right to rescind loans up to three years after the loan's consummation.Jesinoski, slip op. at 1, 2; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), (f).

On February 23, 2010, exactly three years after borrowing $611,000 from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.{{refn|Countrywide was acquired by Bank of America in August 2007 and later changed its name to Bank of America Home Loans|group=fn}} to refinance the mortgage on their home, Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski mailed a letter to Countrywide to rescind the loan agreement.Jesinoski, slip op. at 1. On March 12, 2010, Bank of America Home Loans sent a reply letter in which they refused to acknowledge the validity of the rescission. The Jesinoskis filed suit in federal district court on February 24, 2011 seeking a declaration of rescission and damages. The district court ruled in favor of Bank of America and concluded that the Truth in Lending Act requires borrowers seeking rescission of a loan to file a lawsuit within three years of consummating the loan.Jesinoski, slip op. at 1–2. Because the Jesinoskis filed their lawsuit four years after the loan's consummation, they were not entitled to rescission of the loan. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court.Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 729 F. 3d 1092, 1093 (2013) (per curiam). The Jesinoskis appealed again, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 28, 2014.Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1935 (2014) (granting certiorari).

File:Antonin Scalia Official SCOTUS Portrait.jpg's unanimous opinion as the "shortest opinion of the year."]]

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the Truth in Lending Act does not require borrowers to file a lawsuit to effectuate rescission.Jesinoski, slip op. at 2–3. Justice Scalia stated that the plain language of the act "leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind," but the act "says nothing about how that right is exercised."Jesinoski, slip op. at 2–3 (internal emphasis omitted). Although common law rules for rescission traditionally required "either that the rescinding party return what he received" or a court's "decree [of] rescission," Justice Scalia concluded that the Act did not adopt these common law requirements.Jesinoski, slip op. at 4–5 (internal citations omitted). Instead, he argued that "[n]othing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing its closest common-law analogue."Jesinoski, slip op. at 4–5. Consequently, the statute has effectively altered common law practice, and borrowers "need only provide written notice to a lender in order to exercise his right to rescind."

After the Supreme Court issued its opinion, analysts described Jesinoski as a "landmark case" in Truth in Lending Act jurisprudence.Frank A. Hirsch Jr. & Richard A. McAvoy, [http://www.alston.com/Files/Publication/ed22dc33-62b5-4a03-8a6c-9b8bba621ef1/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e660a742-06ce-42b1-9020-5868dc1cf53c/HIRSCH%20LIFE.pdf Life After Jesinoski: The New "Wild West" of TILA Rescission], 18 {{smallcaps|Consumer Financial Services L. Rep.}} 4 (2015). Other commentators praised the court for "correctly read[ing]" the Truth in Lending Act "to mean what it says." Some analysts also described Justice Scalia's opinion as "terse" and the "shortest opinion of the year" with "only six paragraphs of analysis." Others predicted Justice Scalia's textualist approach in Jesinoski would foreshadow a similar analytic approach for the Court's decision in King v. Burwell.Noah Feldman, {{smallcaps|BloombergView}}: [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-13/how-scalia-could-kill-obamacare/ How Scalia Could Kill Obamacare] (Accessed July 1, 2015).

{{Portal|Law}}

• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 574

{{Reflist|group=fn}}

{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• Milan Prodanovic, [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=djclpp_sidebar Hiding in Plain Sight: Jesinoski and the Consumer's Right of Rescission], 10 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y 141 (2015).

• {{caselaw source

| case = Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., {{Ussc|574|259|2015|el=no}}

| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/259/

| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-684

| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)

| other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-684_ba7d.pdf

}}

Category:2015 in United States case law

Category:United States Supreme Court cases

Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court