Bankamerica National Trust Co. v. Zayas-Bazan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bankamerica National Trust Co. v. Zayas-Bazan

698 So. 2d 1261, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8788, 1997 WL 423441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 30, 1997

DocketNo. 95-3610

StatusPublished

This text of 698 So. 2d 1261 (Bankamerica National Trust Co. v. Zayas-Bazan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bankamerica National Trust Co. v. Zayas-Bazan, 698 So. 2d 1261, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8788, 1997 WL 423441 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Chief Judge.

Appellant filed a foreclosure action after Appellees failed to make a mortgage payment due in 1993. Appellees answered, asserting violations of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635. The loan was made in June 1987. Finding several violations of TILA, the trial court entered a judgment of rescission in favor of Appellees.

The final judgment is reversed. The three-year expiration of Appellees’ right to rescission was in June of 1990. They cannot revive the right to rescission by claiming it as a defense. The circumstances here are virtually identical to those before the Florida Supreme Court in Beach v. Great Western Bank, 692 So.2d 146 (Fla.1997). Beach held that the right to rescission, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1635, lapses after three years from the date of the underlying transaction, and it cannot be revived via a defense in recoupment for TILA violations beyond that three-year period. Id. As a statutorily created remedy, the limitation contained within it could not be extended, even as a defense.

Additionally, damages for Appellant’s failure to respond to Appellees’ rescission demand were also not available. Since the statutory limit for rescission had expired, Appellant’s refusal to recognize Appellees’ rescission demand did not constitute a violation of the statute. Thus, the trial court should not have imposed a statutory penalty upon Appellant.

[1262]*1262All other issues raised are moot. We remand for further proceedings.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, Chief Judge.

Appellant filed a foreclosure action after Appellees failed to make a mortgage payment due in 1993. Appellees answered, asserting violations of the Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635. The loan was made in June 1987. Finding several violations of TILA, the trial court entered a judgment of rescission in favor of Appellees.

The final judgment is reversed. The three-year expiration of Appellees’ right to rescission was in June of 1990. They cannot revive the right to rescission by claiming it as a defense. The circumstances here are virtually identical to those before the Florida Supreme Court in Beach v. Great Western Bank, 692 So.2d 146 (Fla.1997). Beach held that the right to rescission, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1635, lapses after three years from the date of the underlying transaction, and it cannot be revived via a defense in recoupment for TILA violations beyond that three-year period. Id. As a statutorily created remedy, the limitation contained within it could not be extended, even as a defense.

Additionally, damages for Appellant’s failure to respond to Appellees’ rescission demand were also not available. Since the statutory limit for rescission had expired, Appellant’s refusal to recognize Appellees’ rescission demand did not constitute a violation of the statute. Thus, the trial court should not have imposed a statutory penalty upon Appellant.

[1262]*1262All other issues raised are moot. We remand for further proceedings.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 1261, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8788, 1997 WL 423441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankamerica-national-trust-co-v-zayas-bazan-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack