Canceling a mortgage by notice
Larry D. Jesinoski, et ux. v. Countrywide Home Loans
In brief
The Court ruled that written notice to the lender within three years is enough to rescind a loan; borrowers do not also have to sue within that time.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · January 13, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court decided that borrowers rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act by notifying the lender in writing within three years; they do not also have to file a lawsuit within that period.
- Who it affects
- Borrowers exercising the Act’s right to cancel can meet its three-year deadline by notifying the lender in writing; they do not have to file suit within that period.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It overturned the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings (reversed and remanded).
The Truth in Lending Act gives borrowers a right to rescind loans, and its three-year limit was central to this dispute.
Question presented
Does the Truth in Lending Act allow a borrower to rescind a loan by notifying the creditor within the three-year time frame, even though a lawsuit has not yet been filed?
What the Court decided
Holding
A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s unequivocal terms—a borrower “shall have the right to rescind... by notifying the creditor... of his intention to do so ” (emphasis added)—leave no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind. This conclusion is not altered by §1635(f), which states when the right to rescind must be exercised, but says nothing about how that right is exercised. 729 F. 3d 1092, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court read the Act to say that rescission takes effect when a borrower tells the lender in writing. It said the separate provision setting the three-year period governs when the right must be used, not how.
The vote
What's next
The case returns to the Eighth Circuit for further proceedings under the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Jesinoski
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.