Beukes v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, No. 12-2146 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter refinancing a home mortgage in 2007, Beukes, mailed a notice of rescission in 2010, which was rejected. Beukes stopped making payments. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), as nominee for the lender, published notices of a mortgage foreclosure sale. MERS ultimately purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. Beukes sued, seeking rescission and damages under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), claiming that the amount disclosed as the finance charge on the loan understated the amount they were actually charged by $944.31. The district court dismissed. The Eighth Circuit held an appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, (2015), then affirmed the dismissal. Because Beukes mailed notice within three years, the right of rescission had not expired, but the finance charge disclosed in 2007 did not vary from the actual finance charge by more than one-half of one percent of the total amount financed, so it must be treated as accurate. Therefore, the right to rescind expired three business days after delivery of the disclosures. Beukes did not timely attempt to exercise any expanded right to rescind arising from section 1635(i)(2) that might have been available after the initiation of foreclosure proceedings.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Truth in Lending Act. The district court erred in finding that the case should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to file suit within three years of the mortgage transaction, see Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015); the court's alternative holding that the lender had accurately disclosed the finance charge when the transaction was consummated, thereby giving plaintiffs three days to rescind under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1635(a), was a valid basis for dismissal, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 17, 2015.
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.