Fendon v. Bank of America, N.A., 877 F.3d 714

Background

In 2007 Fendon took a mortgage loan from Bank of America; TILA § 1635 allows rescission within three days and, in some circumstances, a three-year notice period.
Fendon sent notices purporting to rescind the loan on Aug. 15, 2008; Apr. 16, 2009; and June 17, 2010. The Bank ignored the first two and rejected the third.
The Bank initiated state-court foreclosure in 2011; a state court entered final judgment confirming the foreclosure sale on March 23, 2016.
On the same day as the state final judgment, Fendon sued in federal court under TILA seeking rescission and other relief. Because the property had been sold, equitable rescission to unwind the transaction was unavailable.
The Bank asserted the one-year statute of limitations in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) for damages under § 1640(a); the district court dismissed Fendon’s suit as time-barred and this Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TILA permits an unlimited time to sue to enforce rescission under § 1635 when notice was timely	Fendon: § 1635 provides a three-year notice window and does not specify a separate time limit for suing to enforce rescission, so no federal SOL applies to rescission claims	Bank: Damages for § 1635 violations are authorized by § 1640(a); § 1640(e) imposes a one-year SOL on claims under § 1640, so damages claims are time-barred	Court: Because only damages were available when suit was filed, § 1640(e)’s one-year limit applied and barred the claim
When did Fendon’s claim accrue for SOL purposes?	Fendon: Later communications tolled or restarted the limitations period	Bank: Claim accrued when creditor failed to act after the initial rescission notice and the 20‑day response period elapsed	Court: Claim accrued by Sept. 4, 2008 (20 days after Aug. 16 notice); later communications did not restart accrual absent equitable tolling/estoppel, which was not shown
Whether Rooker–Feldman barred federal relief attacking the state foreclosure judgment	Fendon: sought declaration that state court erred in foreclosure outcome	Bank: federal court cannot revise state-court judgments under Rooker–Feldman	Court: Rooker–Feldman prevents revising the state judgment; only relief consistent with that judgment (e.g., damages) was possible
Whether equitable doctrines or § 1658 apply to save the claim	Fendon: equitable tolling/laches or the general federal statute of limitations might permit suit	Bank: no basis for equitable tolling; § 1640(e) governs	Court: No equitable tolling or estoppel shown; because § 1640(e) applies, no need to consider § 1658 or borrowing state SOLs

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack authority to review state-court judgments)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (same principle as Rooker applied to state bar decisions)
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (TILA § 1635 notice requirements and rescission timing)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (issue and claim preclusion principles)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual rule: claim accrues when plaintiff has complete and present cause of action)
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (accrual and discovery rules for civil claims)
Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650 (settlements/communications do not necessarily toll accrual)
Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (accrual not delayed by ongoing administrative processes)
Lever v. Northwestern Univ., 979 F.2d 552 (7th Cir. precedent on accrual and tolling principles)