MARVIN WENNEKAMP V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., No. 19-15453 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN R. WENNEKAMP, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15453 D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01374-DAD-SAB v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 6, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Marvin Wennekamp appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) action seeking rescission. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal. See In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 * 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). (9th Cir. 2014). The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The loan at issue was consummated in 2008,1 but Wennekamp did not give notice that he intended to rescind the loan until 2015. The district court therefore properly dismissed Wennekamp’s TILA claim as time-barred because he failed to establish that he timely sent Bank of America a notice of rescission. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), (f) (a borrower may rescind a loan within three business days of the loan transaction, or within three years if the lender failed to make the required disclosures to the borrower); see also Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. 259, 261–62 (2015) (borrower must notify creditor of intent to rescind within three years after the transaction is consummated). There is no legal basis for Wennekamp’s allegation that Bank of America acquiesced to the rescission because it did not challenge the notice of rescission within 20 days. Wennekamp’s right to give notice expired after the three-year period had concluded. Id. at 262. AFFIRMED. 1 We reject as without merit Wennekamp’s contention that the loan transaction at issue was not consummated. 2
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.
