Montano v. Bank of America, N.A., 35,866

Fred Montano (pro se) sued to enforce an asserted rescission of a 2003 mortgage note and mortgage against Bank of America (successor/servicer) and Fannie Mae; district court granted Bank’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Montano appealed; this Court issued a proposed disposition to summarily affirm and received a memorandum in opposition from Montano.
Montano raised that he had rescinded the note/mortgage, that Bank had not proved the right to enforce the note, and that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be precluded by res judicata/collateral estoppel.
The Court concluded prior litigation already decided standing and related issues; res judicata and collateral estoppel bar relitigation of Bank’s standing to enforce the note.
The Court alternatively affirmed under the “right for any reason” doctrine because Montano’s attempted rescission (mailed Jan 18, 2011) was time-barred by 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f): the transaction was consummated May 7, 2003, so the three-year rescission window expired May 7, 2006.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Montano validly rescinded the loan	Montano: rescission effective upon mailing; no judicial review required; rescission not time-barred	Bank: rescission was attempted after §1635(f) three-year limit; prior rulings preclude relitigation	Held: Rescission attempt (Jan 2011) was time-barred; dismissal with prejudice affirmed
Whether Bank had proven right to enforce the note (standing)	Montano: Bank never proved right to enforce; prior summary judgment was void for not requiring proof	Bank: Standing already litigated and resolved in prior case	Held: Standing issue precluded by res judicata/collateral estoppel; court need not relitigate
Whether subject-matter jurisdiction challenges can be relitigated	Montano: jurisdictional issues can be raised anytime; not subject to preclusion	Bank: Prior judgment bars relitigation of jurisdictional/standing matters decided earlier	Held: Jurisdiction/standing claims were precluded by prior judgments; not revisited
Whether Jesinoski precludes judicial review of rescission validity	Montano: Jesinoski means rescission effective on mailing and not judicially reviewable	Bank: Jesinoski confirms rescission effective on timely notice but does not negate §1635(f) time limit or allow untimely rescission	Held: Jesinoski reiterates three-year limit; rescission must be exercised within three years; Montano’s attempt untimely and invalid

Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (discussing §1635(f) three-year rescission limitation)
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (holding borrower need only notify lender within three years to effect rescission; confirms §1635(f) limits)