Keiran v. Home Capital, No. 15-3437 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601-1667f, seeking to rescind their 2006 mortgage. Plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive sufficient copies of disclosures required by TILA at the December 2006 closing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the bank, holding that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they received only one notice. The court explained that a borrower's own conclusory denial of receipt of TILA disclosures, unaccompanied by details or other evidence supporting the denial, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery created by section 1635(c). Therefore, plaintiffs' three-day rescission window of section 1635(a) barred their request for rescission. The court also held that plaintiffs did not raise any specific objections to the accuracy of the disclosure statement during the first summary judgment proceedings. Therefore, the district court's finding was the law of the case and plaintiffs' allegations were waived. Even if the argument were not waived, plaintiffs cannot prevail because the alleged error was not a violation of TILA.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Truth in Lending Act. For the court's earlier opinion in the matter, see Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc. 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2013), vacated, 135 S. Ct. 1152 (2015). Plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of delivery of the required closing documents and the three-day rescission window of Section 1635(a) barred their request for rescission of their mortgage; plaintiffs failed to challenge the district court's finding that the finance disclosure statements were accurate in their first appeal, and this finding was now the law of the case and could not be raised in this appeal; even if the argument were not waived, the inaccuracy fell below the required dollar threshold and the claim is without merit.
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.