THOMAS OQUIST V. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, No. 17-35124 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 1 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS D. OQUIST; BETTEJANE JENKINS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35124 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00452-TSZ Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor by merger to Wachovia Mortgage, FKA World Savings Bank, FSB, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Thomas D. Oquist and Bettejane Jenkins appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in their Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) action seeking rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hauk v. JP Morgan Chase Bank USA, 552 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they timely sent defendants a notice of rescission. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), (f) (a borrower may rescind a loan within three days of a loan transaction, or within three years if the lender fails to make required disclosures to the borrower); see also Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) (a borrower may exercise right of rescission by notifying the lender of borrower’s intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Section] 1635(f) is a statute of repose, depriving the courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a § 1635 claim is brought outside the three-year limitation period.”) We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the subject loan transaction was not consummated. AFFIRMED. 2 17-35124

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.