Michael J. Bazemore v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 692 F. App'x 986

Plaintiffs Michael J. and Vivian R. Bazemore sued U.S. Bank under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), seeking a declaration that they validly rescinded their mortgage loan under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 and monetary damages under § 1640.
The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Bank, finding the Bazemores’ declaratory and damages claims time-barred under § 1640(e).
On appeal the Bazemores argued the one-year limitations period of § 1640(e) does not apply to a declaratory-judgment action under § 1635.
The Eleventh Circuit declined to decide the statute-of-limitations question because it affirmed on independent pleading-defect grounds.
The amended complaint contained only the conclusory allegation that the Bank “has not complied in any manner with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1635” and alleged no specific omitted or defective disclosures required for rescission.
The court held that legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations are insufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1640(e)’s one-year limitations period bars the Bazemores’ declaratory-judgment claim for rescission under § 1635	§ 1640(e) does not apply to declaratory-judgment actions seeking rescission	§ 1640(e) bars the claims (as ruled below)	Not decided; affirmed on independent pleading-ground instead
Whether the amended complaint sufficiently pleads a § 1635 disclosure failure entitling plaintiffs to rescission	The conclusory allegation that the Bank “has not complied in any manner” with § 1635 is sufficient	The allegation is a legal conclusion without supporting facts and is insufficient	Court held pleading was conclusory and insufficient; dismissal affirmed
Whether plaintiffs’ damages claims were properly dismissed as untimely	(Argued on appeal) plaintiffs contended otherwise	Bank: claims time-barred under § 1640(e)	Dismissal affirmed; appellate arguments waived or fail on merits
Whether new identical allegations in a proposed second amended complaint cure defects	Proposed amendment repeats the same conclusory allegation	Bank opposes as futile	Court noted proposed amendment was identical and provided no additional facts; defects remain

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must contain factual matter to state claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions unsupported by facts are not entitled to assumption of truth)
Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (rejecting unsupported legal allegation of disclosure failure)
Lage v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, 839 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 2016) (appellate court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record)
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (issues not raised in district court generally not considered on appeal)