116 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997), 96-1701, Arnold v. Waterfield Mortgage Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:96-1701.
Citation:116 F.3d 472
Party Name:William H. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant,and Michael REDDING, Plaintiff, v. WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,and UNION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; Alvin E. Friedman; Kenneth J. MacFadyen; James J. Loftus; Daniel Menchel, Substitute Trustees, Defendants.
Case Date:June 17, 1997
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 472

116 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997)

William H. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant,and

Michael REDDING, Plaintiff,

v.

WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,and

UNION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; Alvin E. Friedman; Kenneth J. MacFadyen; James J. Loftus; Daniel Menchel, Substitute Trustees, Defendants.

No. 96-1701.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

June 17, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued: May 6, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, No. CA-95-2626-S; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.

ARGUED: Herbert Arthur Terrell, Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant.

Michael Thomas Cantrell, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Allan J. Culver, Jr., Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant.

Kenneth J. MacFadyen, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William H. Arnold appeals an order of the district court granting summary judgment against him on his action to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TILA). We affirm.

In 1989 Arnold obtained a loan from Defendant Union Federal Savings Bank. The loan was evidenced by an adjustable rate note and secured by a mortgage against Arnold's home. In 1995, six years after signing the loan documents, Arnold brought this action in district court to rescind the loan. The TILA imposes a three-year statute of limitations on actions to rescind. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) ("An obligor's right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first ..."). Arnold admits that more than three years have elapsed since the loan transaction...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP