Amadou Wane v. The Loan Company

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Amadou Wane. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions (Opinion corrected on 5/17/2016 - typographical error on USDC Docket Number.)--[Edited 05/17/2016 by JRP]

Case: 15-13951

Date Filed: 05/16/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13951
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-02126-VMC-AEP
AMADOU WANE,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
MERLANDE WANE,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant,
versus
THE LOAN COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee,
BANKUNITED, N.A.,
Defendant-Counter Claimant,
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
AS RECEIVER OF BANKUNITED FSB,
Defendant.

Case: 15-13951

Date Filed: 05/16/2016

Page: 2 of 3

_____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 16, 2016)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On January 14, 2014, we affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Wane’s claim for
rescission under the Truth in Lending Act. See Wane v. Loan Corp., 552 F. App’x
908, 912 (11th Cir. 2014). We concluded that Mr. Wane had failed to plead a
sufficient factual basis for rescission. See id. Mr. Wane and his wife had mailed a
notice of rescission, which was sufficient to contemplate a right to rescind, but had
not pled enough sufficient facts to provide a substantive right to rescind. See id.
Following our decision, Mr. Wane filed a motion for relief from judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4-6). The district court denied that
motion, and Mr. Wane now appeals.
After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Mr. Wane’s Rule 60(b) motion. Mr. Wane relied on a new
Supreme Court case, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. __, 135
S. Ct. 790 (2015) (holding that Truth in Lending Act only requires written notice
of intent to seek rescission within the three-year period for rescission), but that

2

Case: 15-13951

Date Filed: 05/16/2016

Page: 3 of 3

case does not affect the basis for the dismissal of his rescission claim. See Wane,
552 F. App’x at 912. The district court therefore did not err in denying the motion.
AFFIRMED.

3