Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 01-15970.
| Citation | 331 F.3d 1028 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-15970.,01-15970. |
| Parties | Larry MEYER; Virginia Badalamente Meyer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jeff Pollack, Law Offices of Robert A. Goldstein, Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Adam J. Bass, Rachael H. Berman and David Sturgeon-Garcia, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-20679-RMW.
Before NOONAN, McKEOWN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Larry and Virginia Badalamente Meyer (the Meyers) appeal the judgment of the district court in favor of Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Ameriquest). The Meyers brought suit against Ameriquest for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TiLA). The district court granted summary judgment to Ameriquest. Holding that the statute of limitations has run on the Meyers' claim, we affirm the district court.
On February 19, 1999, the Meyers applied to Ameriquest for a loan in the amount of $360,000 to be secured by their residence in San Jose, California. On February 22, 1999, Gina Galli, a loan officer for Ameriquest, brought loan documents to the Meyers' house for signing. Among the documents the Meyers signed was a Right to Cancel Form, which read:
You are entering into a transaction that will result in a security interest (lien) on your home. You have a legal right under federal law to cancel this transaction, without cost, within THREE BUSINESS DAYS from whichever of the following events occurs last:
(1) The date of the transaction, which is 2/22/99; or
(2) The date you received your Truth in Lending disclosures; or
(3) The date you received this notice of your right to cancel.
The form also states, "[i]f you cancel by mail or telegram, you must send the notice no later than midnight of 2/25/99 (or midnight of the third business day following the latest of the three events listed above)." Both of the dates listed were handwritten in by the loan officer. The Notice of Right to Cancel form follows the model form in the Official Commentary to Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq.
The Meyers also signed Ameriquest's Acknowledgment of Conditional Loan Consummation Form, stating that the Meyers understood and acknowledged they had executed a binding loan document and that Ameriquest's funding obligations were conditioned upon a satisfactory review. In addition, the Meyers signed an Important Notice to Borrowers, stating that they had read the loan documents and understood the transaction. The Meyers do not allege they did not receive copies of all the documents required under TiLA.
Ameriquest disbursed the loan proceeds to the Meyers on March 1, 1999. On May 22, 2000, some fifteen months later, the Meyers demanded rescission of the loan.
On June 21, 2000, the Meyers filed suit, alleging violations of TiLA because Ameriquest included conditions precedent in the loan documents, and they assert that no consummation for the purposes of TiLA occurred until those conditions precedent had been satisfied. They claimed the Right to Cancel Notice had therefore been incorrectly dated, allowing them a three-year period to rescind the loan. They sought rescission of the loan, damages for slander of title, civil penalties and attorney's fees and costs.
The Meyers filed a Supplemental Complaint on February 21, 2001, after they had sold their home in December of 2000 and paid off the loan. They now seek damages under TiLA, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(1) (). The Meyers claimed damages in the amount of $89,378.42, representing the amount they allege they overpaid when they paid off the loan.
The district court granted Ameriquest's motion for summary judgment. The Meyers appeal.
Once the Meyers sold their home, took control of the loan proceeds and paid off the loan, the TiLA rescission provision no longer applied and only the damages provision remained as a cause of action. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicol v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...law.B. Timeliness of TILA claim Claims for damages under TILA have a one-year limitations period. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e); Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 331 F.3d 1028, 1030,as amended,342 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir.2003); Fisher v. Bank of Am. Home Loans, 2010 WL 4296609 *3 (D.Or. Oct. 21, 2010).......
-
SALAZAR v. ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS INC.
...to enforce the rescission. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). The statute of limitations runs from the consummation of the loan. Meyer v. Ameriquest Mort. Co., 331 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiff argues that under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f), he was entitled to an additional year in which to file this......
-
Nicol v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 11-cv-1406-SI
...B. Timeliness of TILA claim Claims for damages under TILA have a one-year limitations period. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e); Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 331 F.3d 1028, 1030, as amended, 342 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 2003); Fisher v. Bank of Am. Home Loans, 2010 WL 4296609 *3 (D. Or. Oct. 21, 2010).......
-
Liebelt v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp.
...County Recorder's Office on June 29, 2009.2 The right of TILA rescission expires when a property is sold. Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 331 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2003); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3). Because it is undisputed that Plaintiff's property has been sold, Plaintiff has no right t......