Cappuccio v. Prime Capital Funding LLC, 649 F.3d 180

Cappuccio sought to refinance two existing mortgages into a single loan with lower payments during 2006-2007.
Prime Capital submitted multiple loan applications to Countrywide Bank and First Magnus for two different loan terms without Cappuccio’s full understanding.
Countrywide offered a risky negative amortizing loan; First Magnus offered a 15-year high-rate loan with a balloon payment, neither disclosed clearly to Cappuccio.
Closing was conducted by MAK Abstract with notary Maureen Krajczar; Cappuccio signed Notices of Right to Cancel the same night, without understanding their meaning.
Cappuccio did not receive copies of the notices promptly; later mailings arrived with only partial documentation and dates she misread as deadlines for rescission.
Cappuccio later sought rescission; Countrywide and E*Trade refused; she pursued TILA, UTPCPL, and EOA claims at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of the presumption instruction	Cappuccio contends the instruction improperly required more than her testimony to rebut the presumption.	E*Trade argues Rule 301 permits a stronger presumption or nothing beyond testimony depending on statute.	Instruction erroneous; not supported by TILA or Evidence Rules
Harmlessness of the error	The error affected the jury’s weighing of Cappuccio’s testimony in light of other favorable evidence.	The additional evidence would render the error harmless.	Error not harmless
Finality and timing of appeal	Appeal timely despite post-judgment proceedings on damages.	Default judgments resolved the case; appeal untimely under Rule 4(a).	Appeal timely; final order issues resolved for timing
Completeness and interpretation of TILA tolling instructions	Jury should be instructed that mailing after closing does not start the three-day period unless received and that the correct rescission date must be shown.	Instruction adequately conveyed tolling and rescission date requirements.	No error in sufficiency of tolling instructions

DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301 ((3d Cir.2008)) (finality when damages remain to be determined)
Hattersley v. Bollt, 512 F.2d 209 ((3d Cir.1975)) (setoff as ministerial; finality rule)
Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., 580 F.3d 119 ((3d Cir.2009)) (practical finality standard)
Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913 ((3d Cir.1997)) (finality and burden considerations on appeal)
McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281 ((3d Cir.2006)) (presumption burden and bursting bubble theory under Rule 301)
In re Porter, 961 F.2d 1066 ((3d Cir.1992)) (TILA rescission and Regulation Z disclosure requirements)
In re Cmty. Bank of Northern Va., 622 F.3d 275 ((3d Cir.2010)) (Regulation Z and rescission timing)