Right of Rescission Free Letter & Guide

Right of Rescission Outline

Right of Rescission:
The right of rescission is a right to rescind the mortgage provided by federal law. If the 3 day right to rescind disclosure was not furnished or if the homeowner recently discovered that they were not provided a 3 day right to rescind document. Then this gives them grounds to ask for Rescission of their mortgage. The statute of limitation is 3 years from the date the homeowner/client discovered that they were not given the right of Rescission.

For example:
Lets say you the homeowner discovered yesterday that you had the right to receive the right to rescind document. If the bank/lender/broker did not provide it at the time of closing, even if it was years ago, you still have possible grounds to send the rescind letter.

Steps:
Please see the step by step guide included in this package.

Continue reading below for the supreme court ruling and additional info about the right of rescission.

Right of Rescission Laws & Case Laws
Mortgage Rescission
Right of Rescission /Right to Cancel Mortgage Argument

The notice of right to cancel disclosure was not provided to this client/homeowner. Thus the recent supreme court ruling on this sensitive matter gives the client/homeowner grounds to ask for cancellation of the mortgage/loan. It would be wise for the foreclosing bank or lender the client/homeowner is interacting with to give the client/homeowner favorable terms or to negotiated with the client/homeowner in order to avoid the legal proceedings that might follow considering the severity of these violations by the bank/lender/foreclosing entity.

Notice Of Right To Cancel TILA (Truth In Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601 et seq; 12 CFR Part 266) allows three (3) days to review Disclosure Documents. The referenced “Three Day Right To Cancel” must have a trigger to begin. That trigger is, when the Lender has provided the Borrower with ALL of the required Disclosures under TILA, and that the same are true, complete, accurate, and timely provided.
Being as the entire loan/mortgage process and Mortgage Note referenced herein and throughout, was obtained by wrongful acts of fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation, the Borrower has other recourse, right, and cause of action under numerous State and Federal statutes.

Pursuant to the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2015), 135 S.Ct. 790, TILA gives me, as a borrower, the right to rescind the subject loan until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the disclosures required under TILA. I am hereby notifying you, as the creditor, of my intention to do so as you and/or your predecessors have failed to satisfy the TILA disclosure requirements, including but not limited to delivery of a written document to me explaining my rights at the time of the transaction.
To this date, Lender has never provided Borrower with true, complete, accurate or timely documents as required. ONLY AFTER such provision has been complied with can the “3 DAY RIGHT TO CANCEL” period begin. If the required full Disclosures have not been provided, then the period in which to CANCEL is extended for up to three (3) years, or until Lender moves to foreclose. The records thus far evidence that Borrower has requested to cancel within the three (3) year stipulated time period, while still waiting to receive all truth-in-lending disclosures as required by Federal Law, the same of which has never been received.

A close perusal, and audit of Borrower’s note/loan documents have revealed certain Disclosure Violations, and that the Borrower has the remedial right and remedy pursuant to UCC 1-201 (32) (34), inter alia, to invoke their Right Of Rescission (ROR), as further evidenced by the original NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL. This letter shall constitute NOTICE to all Lender(s), Successor(s), and Beneficiaries assigned, and/or appointed.

After sufficient NOTICE has been given to Lender, the Lender is required by Federal Law to CANCEL any lien(s), and to CANCEL any security interest on the Borrower’s property within twenty (20) days. The Lender must also return any money, interest, fee, and/or property to the Borrower, as well as any money/funds given to any person or fiction in law/entity in connection with said transaction.

In accordance with both State and Federal law or until Lender complies, Borrower may retain the proceeds of the transaction. If it should be “impractical”, or “Unfair” for the Borrower to return the property when gross discrepancies, fraud, or other wrongful acts are discovered, then he/she/they may offer its “Reasonable Value”.

In the event that the Lender should fail, or refuse to return the Borrower’s money offer within twenty (20) days, the Borrower may then regain/acquire all rights to clear title and reconveyance under Federal law, State Statutes, Uniform Commercial Code, and provisions of TILA, with the same being supported by the evidence of both public and bank records, and further as attached hereto.

Additionally, Borrower has the right to offer Lender a Reasonable Value. However, the penalties a bank can face for violations of TILA, and other State and Federal law can be as much as triple the damages, i.e., triple the amount of the interest the bank stood to fraudulently make off the mortgage/loan transaction. Therefore, the Borrower(s) hereby in good faith makes the following offer: Borrower will forgive bank/trust any liability incurred by its wrongful actions, provided bank/trust rightfully forgive Borrower(s) the full amount of mortgage/credit bank/trust fraudulently alleged to have given. In addition, Borrower(s) make the one time demand $1, 250,000.00 for any loss, damage, and injury he/she/they have sustained; and that bank/trust also immediately remove any/all negative comments on Borrower’s credit report attributed to this transaction.

Any default, failures, or non-compliance on the Lender’s part to perform as herein directed within twenty (20) days of receipt, shall constitute this NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL as valid and fully agreed/accepted pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth herein.

October 3, YEAR

FROM:
ADDRESS
TO:
BANK ADDRESS

RE: Loan No. 894-2248 07 APN: 311 – 32 – 095
Commonly Known Address: 55555 STREET & CITY
CITY, STATE ZIP CODE
Instrument Number 48484848484848484848484; Recording Date: 01-01-2000
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL

Parties: HOMEOWNER NAME
Attention: ALL above named respondents.
This communication shall serves as our Notice Of Right To Cancel dated September 8, 2015 TILA (Truth In Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601 et seq; 12 CFR Part 266) allows three (3) days to review Disclosure Documents. The referenced “Three Day Right To Cancel” must have a trigger to begin. That trigger is, when the Lender has provided the Borrower with ALL of the required Disclosures under TILA, and that the same are true, complete, accurate, and timely provided.
Being as the entire loan/mortgage process and Mortgage Note referenced herein and throughout, was obtained by wrongful acts of fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation, the Borrower has other recourse, right, and cause of action under numerous State and Federal statutes.

Pursuant to the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2015), 135 S.Ct. 790, TILA gives me, as a borrower, the right to rescind the subject loan until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the disclosures required under TILA. I am hereby notifying you, as the creditor, of my intention to do so as you and/or your predecessors have failed to satisfy the TILA disclosure requirements, including but not limited to delivery of a written document to me explaining my rights at the time of the transaction.
To this date, Lender has never provided Borrower with true, complete, accurate or timely documents as required. ONLY AFTER such provision has been complied with can the “3 DAY RIGHT TO CANCEL” period begin. If the required full Disclosures have not been provided, then the period in which to CANCEL is extended for up to three (3) years, or until Lender moves to foreclose. The records thus far evidence that Borrower has requested to cancel within the three (3) year stipulated time period, while still waiting to receive all truth-in-lending disclosures as required by Federal Law, the same of which has never been received.
A close perusal, and audit of Borrower’s note/loan documents have revealed certain Disclosure Violations, and that the Borrower has the remedial right and remedy pursuant to UCC 1-201 (32) (34), inter alia, to invoke their Right Of Rescission (ROR), as further evidenced by the original NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL. This letter shall constitute NOTICE to all Lender(s), Successor(s), and Beneficiaries assigned, and/or appointed.
After sufficient NOTICE has been given to Lender, the Lender is required by Federal Law to CANCEL any lien(s), and to CANCEL any security interest on the Borrower’s property within twenty (20) days. The Lender must also return any money, interest, fee, and/or property to the Borrower, as well as any money/funds given to any person or fiction in law/entity in connection with said transaction.
In accordance with both State and Federal law or until Lender complies, Borrower may retain the proceeds of the transaction. If it should be “impractical”, or “Unfair” for the Borrower to return the property when gross discrepancies, fraud, or other wrongful acts are discovered, then he/she/they may offer its “Reasonable Value”.

In the event that the Lender should fail, or refuse to return the Borrower’s money offer within twenty (20) days, the Borrower may then regain/acquire all rights to clear title and reconveyance under Federal law, State Statutes, Uniform Commercial Code, and provisions of TILA, with the same being supported by the evidence of both public and bank records, and further as attached hereto.
Additionally, Borrower has the right to offer Lender a Reasonable Value. However, the penalties a bank can face for violations of TILA, and other State and Federal law can be as much as triple the damages, i.e., triple the amount of the interest the bank stood to fraudulently make off the mortgage/loan transaction. Therefore, the Borrower(s) hereby in good faith makes the following offer: Borrower will forgive First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Backed Pass Certificates, Series 2005-FFH3any liability incurred by its wrongful actions, provided First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Backed Pass Certificates, Series 2005-FFH3rightfully forgive Borrower(s) the full amount of mortgage/credit First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Backed Pass Certificates, Series 2005-FFH3fraudulently alleged to have given. In addition, Borrower(s) make the one time demand $1, 250,000.00 for any loss, damage, and injury he/she/they have sustained; and that First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Asset-Backed Pass Certificates, Series 2005-FFH3also immediately remove any/all negative comments on Borrower’s credit report attributed to this transaction.
Any default, failures, or non-compliance on the Lender’s part to perform as herein directed within twenty (20) days of receipt, shall constitute this NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL as valid and fully agreed/accepted pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth herein.
Sincerely,
___________________________
HOMEOWNER NAME
c/o NAME
Real Party In Interest

Right to Rescind Letter Instructions

1.) Enter the date at the top of the letter. Date of mailing.
2.) Send the letter via USPS certified mail receipt with tracking
3.) Make a copy of the letter sent, as well as the receipt given to you by the Post Office
4.) Wait 20 days for a response.

Goal of Letter:
The aim of the rescind letter is to gauge the response of the lender and make an effort to either (A) Get lender/bank to negotiate favorable terms.
(B) Overwhelm lender/bank with evidence (in letter) to walk away from any pending foreclosure action or foreclosure litigation
© Halt or delay any foreclosure action

Depending on your situation, the goal is one of the choices above; others include attempting to receive favorable terms on a loan mod, etc.

OCTOBER TERM, 2014
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
JESINOSKI ET UX. v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 13–684. Argued November 4, 2014—Decided January 13, 2015
Exactly three years after borrowing money from respondent Country¬wide Home Loans, Inc., to refinance their home mortgage, petitioners Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski sent Countrywide and respondent Bank of America Home Loans, which had acquired Countrywide, a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. Bank of America replied, re-fusing to acknowledge the rescission’s validity. One year and one day later, the Jesinoskis filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaration of rescission and damages. The District Court entered judgment on the pleadings for respondents, concluding that a borrower can exer¬cise the Truth in Lending Act’s right to rescind a loan, see 15 U. S. C. §1635(a), (f), only by filing a lawsuit within three years of the date the loan was consummated. The Jesinoskis’ complaint, filed four years and one day after the loan’s consummation, was ineffective. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Held: 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 bor¬rower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so” (emphasis added)—leave no doubt that re¬scission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his in¬tention 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. Nor does §1635(g)—which states that “in addition to rescission the court may award relief . . . not re¬lating to the right to rescind”—support respondents’ view that rescis¬sion is necessarily a consequence of judicial action. And the fact that the Act modified the common-law condition precedent to rescission at 2 JESINOSKI v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. Syllabus law, see §1635(b), hardly implies that the Act thereby codified rescis¬sion in equity. Pp. 2–5. 729 F. 3d 1092, reversed and remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. _________________ _________________ 1 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2015) Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash¬ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 13–684
LARRY D. JESINOSKI, ET UX., PETITIONERS v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[January 13, 2015] JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Truth in Lending Act gives borrowers the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the trans¬action is consummated. The question presented is whether a borrower exercises this right by providing written no- tice to his lender, or whether he must also file a lawsuit before the 3-year period elapses.
On February 23, 2007, petitioners Larry and CheryleJesinoski refinanced the mortgage on their home by bor¬rowing $611,000 from respondent Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Exactly three years later, on February 23, 2010, the Jesinoskis mailed respondents a letter purport-ing to rescind the loan. Respondent Bank of America Home Loans replied on March 12, 2010, refusing to acknowledge the validity of the rescission. On February24, 2011, the Jesinoskis filed suit in Federal District Court seeking a declaration of rescission and damages.

Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the District Court granted. The court concluded that the Act requires a borrower seeking rescission to file a lawsuit within three years of the transaction’s consummation. Although the Jesinoskis notified respondents of their intention to rescind within that time, they did not file their first complaint until four years and one day after the loan’s consummation. 2012 WL 1365751, *3 (D Minn., Apr. 19, 2012). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. 729 F. 3d 1092, 1093 (2013) (per curiam).

Congress passed the Truth in Lending Act, 82 Stat. 146,as amended, to help consumers “avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing.” 15 U. S. C. §1601(a). To this end, the Act grants borrowers the right to rescind a loan“ until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the [disclosures required by the Act], whichever is later, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the [Federal Reserve] Board, of his intention to do so.”§1635(a) (2006 ed.).* This regime grants borrowers an unconditional right to rescind for three days, after which they may rescind only if the lender failed to satisfy the Act’s disclosure requirements. But this conditional right to rescind does not last forever. Even if a lender never makes the required disclosures, the “right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever comes first.” §1635(f). The Eighth Circuit’s affirmance in the present case rested upon its holding in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F. 3d 721, 727–728 (2013) that, unless a borrower has filed a suit for rescission within three years of the transaction’s consummation, §1635(f) extinguishes the right to rescind and bars relief.
That was error. Section 1635(a) explains in unequivocal ——————
*Following the events in this case, Congress transferred the author- ity to promulgate rules implementing the Act to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, §§1061(b)(1), 1100A(2), 1100H, 124 Stat. 2036, 2107,2113. 3 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2015) terms how the right to rescind is to be exercised: It pro¬vides that a borrower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so” (emphasis added). The language leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to re¬scind. It follows that, so long as the borrower notifies within three years after the transaction is consummated, his rescission is timely. The statute does not also require him to sue within three years.
Nothing in §1635(f) changes this conclusion. Although§1635(f) tells us when the right to rescind must be exer¬cised, it says nothing about how that right is exercised. Our observation in Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U. S. 410, 417 (1998), that §1635(f) “govern[s] the life of the underlying right” is beside the point. That case concerned a borrower’s attempt to rescind in the course of a foreclo¬sure proceeding initiated six years after the loan’s con¬summation. We concluded only that there was “no federal right to rescind, defensively or otherwise, after the 3-yearperiod of §1635(f) has run,” id., at 419, not that there was no rescission until a suit is filed.
Respondents do not dispute that §1635(a) requires only written notice of rescission. Indeed, they concede that written notice suffices to rescind a loan within the first three days after the transaction is consummated. They further concede that written notice suffices after that period if the parties agree that the lender failed to make the required disclosures. Respondents argue, however, that if the parties dispute the adequacy of the disclo¬sures—and thus the continued availability of the right to rescind—then written notice does not suffice.
Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter. In an effort to sidestep this problem, respondents point to a neighboring 4 JESINOSKI v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. provision, §1635(g), which they believe provides support for their interpretation of the Act. Section 1635(g) states merely that, “[i]n any action in which it is determined that a creditor has violated this section, in addition to rescis¬sion the court may award relief under section 1640 of this title for violations of this subchapter not relating to the right to rescind.” Respondents argue that the phrase “award relief ” “in addition to rescission” confirms that rescission is a consequence of judicial action. But the fact that it can be a consequence of judicial action when §1635(g) is triggered in no way suggests that it can only follow from such action. The Act contemplates various situations in which the question of a lender’s compliance with the Act’s disclosure requirements may arise in a lawsuit—for example, a lender’s foreclosure action in which the borrower raises inadequate disclosure as an affirmative defense. Section 1635(g) makes clear that a court may not only award rescission and thereby relieve the borrower of his financial obligation to the lender, but may also grant any of the remedies available under §1640 (including statutory damages). It has no bearing upon whether and how borrower-rescission under §1635(a) may occur.
Finally, respondents invoke the common law. It is true that rescission traditionally required either that the re¬scinding party return what he received before a rescission could be effected (rescission at law), or else that a court affirmatively decree rescission (rescission in equity). 2 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §9.3(3), pp. 585–586 (2d ed. 1993). It is also true that the Act disclaims the common-law condition precedent to rescission at law that the bor¬rower tender the proceeds received under the transaction. 15 U. S. C. §1635(b). But the negation of rescission-at¬law’s tender requirement hardly implies that the Act codifies rescission in equity. Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a 5 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2015) Opinion of the Court
congressional Act must be construed as implementing its closest common-law analogue. Cf. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108–109 (1991). The clear import of §1635(a) is that a borrower need only provide written notice to a lender in order to exercise his right to rescind. To the extent §1635(b) alters the tradi¬tional process for unwinding such a unilaterally rescinded transaction, this is simply a case in which statutory law modifies common-law practice.
* * * The Jesinoskis mailed respondents written notice of their intention to rescind within three years of their loan’s consummation. Because this is all that a borrower must do in order to exercise his right to rescind under the Act, the court below erred in dismissing the complaint. Accord¬ingly, we reverse the judgment of the Eighth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Disclaimer:
This report is mainly for informational purposes, please consult a legal professional.