Bradford v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 282

MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 3/5/2012. (klau, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

NORMAN BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,

p

' L E nl

r MAR "5 2012 (y!
ULbHK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

Case No. l:09cvl 226

HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is the latest chapter in a rather long-running TILA1 saga that bids fair to be the

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce1 ofTILA matters. At issue inthis chapter is plaintiff Norman Bradford's
motion for reconsideration of the July 22,2011 Order dismissing his TILA rescission and

wrongful failure to rescind claims. See Bradford v. HSBC Mortg. Corp., No. I:09cvl226 (E.D.
Va. July 22, 2011) (Order). The July 22 Order, focusing chiefly on the rescission claim,
dismissed the TILA claims as time-barred as Bradford had filed his TILA action outside TILA's

three-year statute of repose. See id. Bradford now seeks reconsideration of the July 22 Order

insofaras it dismissed his claim that defendants wrongfully failed to grant his rescission request
in violation of TILA, arguing that this claim was not time-barred. For the reasons that follow,
the July 22 Order correctly dismissed the TILA wrongful failure to rescind claim because that
claim—based on the erroneous premise that a borrower's notice to a lender of intent to rescind
triggers the lender's duty to effect rescission—fails to state a claim on which relief can be

granted. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration must be denied.

Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. ("TILA").

See generally Charles Dickens, Bleak House (Nicola Bradbury, ed. 2011).