Denise Otto v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 693 F. App'x 161

In 2006 Denise Otto executed an adjustable-rate note for $160,000 and a mortgage recorded to MERS as nominee for BNC Mortgage, Inc. to buy property in Irvington, NJ.
Otto later learned BNC had identified itself at closing as a Delaware corporation but had surrendered Delaware authority earlier; she alleges misidentification and nondisclosure of the true lender.
On August 15, 2015 Otto mailed notices of rescission to BNC’s agent, MERS, Wells Fargo (servicer), and U.S. Bank, asserting rescission rights under TILA and related regulations.
A New Jersey state-court foreclosure judgment was entered August 14, 2014; defendants moved to dismiss Otto’s federal suit as a collateral attack on that judgment.
The District Court dismissed the complaint, invoking Rooker–Feldman and alternative defenses (res judicata/entire controversy doctrine, TILA time bars, litigation privilege, and absence of a private cause of action under the cited criminal statute).
The Third Circuit affirmed: Rooker–Feldman bars requests to overturn the foreclosure; alternatively, Otto’s TILA rescission claim was time-barred (§1635(f) three-year limit) and damages claims were time-barred (§1640(e)); no private civil remedy exists under 15 U.S.C. §1611.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Otto’s suit is barred by Rooker–Feldman	Otto sought relief (rescission/satisfaction) that would effectively nullify the state foreclosure judgment	Action is an impermissible collateral attack on the state-court foreclosure judgment	Rooker–Feldman bars any federal claim seeking to overturn the state foreclosure judgment
Whether Otto validly rescinded under TILA §1635	Otto mailed rescission notices in 2015 alleging TILA disclosures were deficient (misidentified lender)	Rescission right expired three years after consummation; loan closed in 2006	Rescission time-barred by §1635(f); right expired before notices were sent
Whether money damages under TILA are available	Otto sought statutory damages for TILA violations	One-year limitations period for damages under §1640(e) bars claims	Damages claims time-barred by §1640(e)
Whether a private civil action exists under 15 U.S.C. §1611 (criminal statute)	Otto asserted defendants violated §1611 by pursuing foreclosure after rescission	§1611 imposes criminal liability; no private civil remedy exists	No private cause of action under §1611; Otto cannot pursue civil relief on that ground

Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (U.S. 2006) (limits Rooker–Feldman to state-court losers seeking federal review of state judgments)
Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1998) (TILA rescission right subject to §1635(f) three-year statute)
Vallies v. Sky Bank, 591 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009) (distinguishes TILA private damages remedy from criminal liability provisions)
In re Madera, 586 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2009) (application of Rooker–Feldman in bankruptcy/related federal proceedings)
In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) (Rooker–Feldman analysis in post-judgment federal suits)
Turner v. Crawford Square Apts. III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2006) (distinguishing pre-/post-judgment federal claims from Rooker–Feldman bar)
Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for plenary review of legal rulings)
McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 554 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2009) (plenary review principles)
United States v. City of Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1980) (limits on implying private causes of action from criminal statutes)
Erie Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Erie, 853 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1988) (appellate affirmation may be based on any record-supported ground)