Andrzej Madura, et ux. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., et al.

1 The mortgage purportedly foreclosed had been rescinded in accordance with TILA long prior to commencement of the foreclosure suit. Without defensive pleading or underlying proof, the district court entered July 17, 2013 Summary Judgment of Foreclosure, concluding that the petitioners’ May 23, 2001 rescission notice sent the creditor Countrywide Home Loans Inc., was “patently frivolous” as was not sent to Bank of America NA (Bana) a stranger to the petitioners who had no connection to their loan until its purported purchase eight years after they effected loan rescission. The following issues were essential to disposition of the foreclosure case, but were never actually the subject of competent proof in this action: QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether, under the Truth in Lending Act and controlling case authority, the lender or creditor, after receipt of timely notice of rescission of a non­ purchase money mortgage, given by the borrower, may decline to follow the prescribed procedure under sec 15 U.S..C 1635(b) provided for challenging or effectuating the rescission, and thereafter simply proceed with foreclosure of the rescinded mortgage, without pleading or proof of any deficiency in the rescission notice, and without pleading or proof of the subject matter jurisdiction of the chosen foreclosing court. Whether, under the Truth in Lending Act and controlling case authority, the foreclosing court, upon the borrowers’ defense that said court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to foreclose the previously duly rescinded mortgage, can declare the rescission notice to be insufficient (or “patently frivolous”) for