700 Fed.Appx. 817 (10th Cir. 2017), 16-1379, Rader v. Citibank N.A

Docket Nº:16-1379
Citation:700 Fed.Appx. 817
Opinion Judge:Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge
Party Name:Vivian L. RADER; Steven R. Rader, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIBANK N.A., as Successor Trustee to U.S. Bank National Association as Successor to Wachovia Bank National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Mastr Alternative Loan Trust 2004-1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-1; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendants-...
Attorney:William Jeffrey Barnes, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Morton Lewis, Paul J. Lopach, Cynthia Lowery-Graber, Bryan Cave, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees
Judge Panel:Before MATHESON, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 07, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 817

700 Fed.Appx. 817 (10th Cir. 2017)

Vivian L. RADER; Steven R. Rader, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITIBANK N.A., as Successor Trustee to U.S. Bank National Association as Successor to Wachovia Bank National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Mastr Alternative Loan Trust 2004-1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-1; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1379

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

July 7, 2017

Editorial Note:

UNPUBLISHED OPINION (See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 10th Cir. Rule 32.1.)

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02736-LTB) (D. Colorado)

William Jeffrey Barnes, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Morton Lewis, Paul J. Lopach, Cynthia Lowery-Graber, Bryan Cave, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs-Appellants Vivian L. Rader and Steven R. Rader appeal from the district

Page 818

court’s dismissal of their action brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1635 of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), in which they sought to rescind a 2003 promissory note and deed of trust (collectively, the " Mortgage Loan" ). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I.

Steven Rader borrowed $630,000 from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. on October 8, 2003. See Aplt. App. at 183.1 The promissory note was secured by the Raders’ property in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, pursuant to a deed of trust dated October 8, 2003. See id . at 187, 189. The deed of trust was recorded on October 15, 2003, in the records of the County of Archuleta, Colorado. Id . at 187.

After the loan transaction closed, the Raders began making payments in 2003, but stopped making payments sometime in 2008 because of alleged billing errors. See id . at 43, 47. Seven years later, in August 2015, defendant-appellee Citibank, N.A. (the holder of the note) sold the mortgaged property at a foreclosure sale.2 In October 2015, the Raders sent " Rescission Letters" purporting to rescind the Mortgage Loan. The Raders then filed a " Verified Petition to Enforce Rescission" in December 2015 against Citibank and defendant-appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc. (the servicer of the loan).

Under TILA, an obligor’s right of rescission expires three years after the date of the consummation of the transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f). In their petition, the Raders asserted that the loan wasn’t consummated at the closing because the true lender wasn’t disclosed; therefore, their time to rescind didn’t begin to run until October 2015, when they learned the true identity of the lender. They alleged that: the original lender, GreenPoint, " was not a party competent to enter into the loan agreement ... as it was not the true lender" ; " [t]here was no agreement between [the Raders] and the true lender" ; and " no consideration was provided to [the Raders] by [GreenPoint]." Aplt. App. at 10.

Citibank and Ocwen moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Raders allegations werent plausible and that the rescission action was untimely because the loan transaction was consummated at the 2003 closing. The district court agreed, concluding the Raders had " failed to plausibly plead that the Mortgage Loan was not consummated at the 2003 closing." Id . at 288. The district court also rejected the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP