Kathryn McOmie v. Bank of America Home Loans
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2448
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- McOmie-Gray sues Bank of America Home Loans seeking rescission of a first trust deed loan under TILA for alleged disclosure failures.
- District court dismissed as untimely under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f)’s three-year repose from loan consummation, April 14, 2006.
- McOmie-Gray alleged tolling negotiations with the Bank extended the period, but the court did not address tolling.
- Complaint filed August 28, 2009; First Amended Complaint filed March 30, 2010; court held the claim time-barred.
- Court follows Miguel v. Country Funding Corp. to treat § 1635(f) as a three-year repose, not an open-ended period.
- Affirmed dismissal; tolling agreement deemed irrelevant to timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §1635(f) a statute of repose governing rescission claims? | McOmie-Gray argues tolling extends time within three years. | Bank contends §1635(f) is a three-year repose, not subject to tolling. | §1635(f) is a statute of repose; three-year bar applies. |
| May rescission be filed after three years if notice was timely? | Miguel allows extended time if notice delivered timely. | Miguel is controlling; no extension beyond three years. | Miguel controls; rescission claims must be within three years. |
| Do tolling agreements affect timeliness of rescission actions? | Tolling allegedly extended the period. | Tolling is irrelevant to §1635(f)’s three-year bar. | Tolling is irrelevant to timeliness. |
| Is §1640(a) damages limit pertinent to rescission actions? | Unclear; not expressly addressed as extending rescission. | §1640 applies to damages, not to rescission timing. | §1640 is irrelevant to rescission timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1998) (limits rescission rights to three years from consummation)
- Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2002) (§1635(f) is a statute of repose; three-year bar on rescission)
- King v. California, 784 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1986) (statute-of-limitations-like limits tied to §1635(f))
- U.S. v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc; reasoning on law becoming binding circuit precedent)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (clear-statement rule; jurisdictional analyses distinguished from mandatory rules)