Belini v Washington Mutual June 15, 2005

The United States Appeals Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled that there is no federal question of jurisdiction over a claim for rescission in the State of Massachusetts.

[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]

The plaintiffs, Richard and Theresa Belini, alleged that the defendant, Washington Mutual Bank, sold them a high-cost mortgage without making disclosures required by TILA and equivalent Massachusetts law. They sued in federal court, asserting claims for damages for failure to make these disclosures, for rescission, and for damages for Washington Mutual's alleged failure to respond properly to their notice of rescission, under both TILA and similar Massachusetts law. The district court held that all of the Belinis' damages claims were time barred, without discussing separately their claim for Washington Mutual's alleged failure to respond to their notice of rescission.  The court found that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met, so there was no diversity jurisdiction, and that there was no federal question jurisdiction over a claim for rescission (as opposed to a claim for damages) because of the Massachusetts exemption from certain TILA requirements.

 

See Belini v Washington Mutual

 

Presented to you by:

Bank Fraud Victims

Our mission is to educate homeowners about predatory lending practices and bank fraud and the legal options available to them. 

 

We believe that if you don't know your rights, you don't know your options.

 

website:http://mortgage-home-loan-bank-fraud.com

 

Join Us Today, We have been successfully helping consumers with  Debt Resolution and Credit Repair more than 10 years.

 

| Home | Articles | Foreclosure Help | Legal Disclaimer |

| Case Law | Legal Resources| Resources | Privacy Policy |

| Site Map | About Us | Contact Us |

 

Bank Fraud Victim Center

Copyright All rights reserved.