Larry Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

729 F.3d 1092, 2013 WL 4799018, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18757
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 10, 2013
Docket12-2202
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 729 F.3d 1092 (Larry Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Larry Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 729 F.3d 1092, 2013 WL 4799018, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18757 (8th Cir. 2013).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Mortgagors Larry and Cheryle Jesino-ski appeal the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to their lenders in a dispute regarding a $611,000 home loan. Three years to the day after consummating the loan, the Jesinoskis mailed notices to the lenders seeking to rescind the loan due to alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA); the lenders denied the Jesinoskis’ requests to rescind. One year and one day after mailing the letters—-now more than four years after consummating the loan—the Jesinoskis sued the lenders to rescind the loan. The sole issue on appeal is whether mailing a notice of rescission within three years of consummating a loan is sufficient to “exercise” the right to rescind a loan transaction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a) or, alternatively, whether a party seeking to rescind the transaction is required to file a lawsuit within the three-year statutory period.

This Court recently weighed in on the circuit split regarding this precise issue and held that a party seeking to rescind a loan transaction must file suit within three years of consummating the loan. Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721, 726-29 (8th Cir.2013) (adopting the Tenth Circuit’s view in Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA 681 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir.2012)); see Hartman v. Smith, 734 F.3d 752, 759-61, No. 12-1947, 2013 WL 4407058, at *7-8 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013) (following Keiran). “It is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.” Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of the lenders.

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

Related

Larry Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
883 F.3d 1010 (Eighth Circuit, 2018)
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
196 F. Supp. 3d 956 (D. Minnesota, 2016)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Smith
365 P.3d 389 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2016)
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
135 S. Ct. 790 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortgage Co.
50 F. Supp. 3d 300 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Peterson
746 F.3d 357 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
729 F.3d 1092, 2013 WL 4799018, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-jesinoski-v-countrywide-home-loans-inc-ca8-2013.