Finally, the court considered the adequacy of the CFPB’s claims themselves. The court conducted a detailed review of the allegations supporting each of the CFPB’s three claims under the CFPA, and held that the elements of each were adequately pled.The court then addressed the CFPB’s TILA claim, and held that it was barred by TILA’s one-year limitations period under 15 U.S.C. Section 1640(e). The CFPB urged that 15 U.S.C. Section 1607, and not Section 1640, governed its TILA claim, and that the claim was not subject to Section 1640’s one-year limitations period.

Finally, the court considered the adequacy of the CFPB’s claims themselves. The court conducted a detailed review of the allegations supporting each of the CFPB’s three claims under the CFPA, and held that the elements of each were adequately pled.The court then addressed the CFPB’s TILA claim, and held that it was barred by TILA’s one-year limitations period under 15 U.S.C. Section1640(e). The CFPB urged that 15 U.S.C. Section1607, and not Section 1640, governed its TILA claim, and that the claim was not subject to Section 1640’s one-year limitations period.

(ii) By statute, TILA limits statutory damages for mortgage disclosures, in both individual and class actions to failure to provide a closed-set of disclosures. 15 U.S.C. §1640(a). (iii) Formatting errors and the like are unlikely to give rise to private liability unless the formatting interferes with the clear and conspicuous disclosure of one of the TILA disclosures listed as giving rise to statutory and class action damages in 15 U.S.C. §1640(a).

(ii) By statute, TILA limits statutory damages for mortgage disclosures, in both individual and class actions to failure to provide a closed-set of disclosures. 15 U.S.C. §1640(a). (iii) Formatting errors and the like are unlikely to give rise to private liability unless the formatting interferes with the clear and conspicuous disclosure of one of the TILA disclosures listed as giving rise to statutory and class action damages in 15 U.S.C. §1640(a).

See, e.g., Elliott v. First Federal Community Bank of Bucyrus, 821 Fed. Appx. 406 (2020) (Bank held to have violated ATR/QM Rule by failing to verify the borrower's spousal support income through review of the separation agreement or reliable third-party documents, despite argument that it reasonably relied on 1) spouse's assurances that couple had agreed on spousal support and she would follow through with her commitment to enter the separation agreement (which she did two months after closing), and 2) documentation that spouse would be able to make spousal-support payments). Damages for violation of ATR/QM Rule is sum of all finance charges and fees paid by borrower plus, when awarded as a matter of recoupment or set-off in a foreclosure action, borrower's reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(4), (k)(2)(A). Class actions alleging ATR/QM Rule violations are also a possibility.

This is because the express language of TILA provides for a one (1) year statute of limitations for rescission claims. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) provides a borrower with remedies under TILA when a lender declines a borrower’s request for rescission: “[A]ny creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this part, including any requirement under section 1635 of this title…with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of—(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of the failure…(3) in the case of…any action in which a person is determined to have a right of rescission under section 1635 or 1638(e)(7) of this title, the costs of the action together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court…” [Emphasis added] Moreover, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) provides a one (1) year time limit within which actions may be brought when a lender allegedly fails to comply with a request for rescission under TILA. “[A]ny action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from t

See Decision. at *32 33. The Court noted that TILA claims ordinarily are subject to a one-year statute of limitation (see 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)), and that the instant lawsuit was commenced more than one year after certain alleged events at issue, and thus was time-barred. Id.

Moreover, some regulations provide for statutory damages or attorneys’ fees, further compounding the potential loss. (See 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (West); 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640 (West))Avoid Litigation at All Costs Inattentive ticket sellers and venue organizers might be headed into a perfect legal storm. The combination of high volume sales, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees are sure to attract creative attorneys seeking to initiate a class action.

Response to Comment 1.4.8, Final Statement of Reasons at 48. Response to Comment 1.2.8, Final Statement of Reasons at 31.Compare 15 U.S.C. § 1640(b).E.g., Response to Comments 1.4.15, 1.4.16, 1.7.1, 1.19.3, 1.21.1, 1.31.1, 1.34.3, 2.4.6, 3.5.3, Final Statement of Reasons at 51, 51, 58, 91, 92–93, 97, 99–100, 110, 140–141.[View source.]

Among other claims, the plaintiff alleged that RMS failed to provide her with the disclosures required by TILA, including the right to rescind the loan, and sought a declaratory judgment that the loan was rescinded as a matter of law and that she was not liable to RMS for any amount. By the time the case proceeded to trial, only three claims remained for resolution, including the plaintiff’s claim for rescission under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(b) and failure to honor rescission under 15 U.S.C. § 1640. At trial, RMS won a complete defense jury verdict on the remaining claims.