[timob1973]

A while back, Jack would always point out that Regulation Z and 15 US Code 1635 were somewhat different when he talked about rescission. Under Regulation Z, the borrower must have an ownership interest in the collateral being taken. However, under 15 US Code 1635 the collateral just needed to be a principal dwelling.

Where does Jack land on this issue now? Is he more in the camp that an ownership interest must trigger the rescission requirement or would Jack provide a right to rescind to a renter who decides to purchase the home they are living in from the landlord?

Are there any court cases in which the judge ruled that an ownership interest was not required under 15 US Code 1635?

Your help is appreciated.

Topic

[Kimberly Boatwright, CAMS, CRCM]

I’m not sure where Jack would land on this issue today. I was unable to locate any current cases that speak to this issue. I would recommend you pose this question to your institution’s legal counsel ideally because tenant rules by state can be very tricky in today’s world. However, strictly speaking by federal law (Reg Z) the Recession notice would be for the owner of the collateral. So I would not provide one to the renter. They have nothing to rescind since they do not own the collateral and I’m assuming they are getting a purchase loan for the property.

NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee, and may contain confidential and privileged information either as protected work product or confidential client information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain, or disseminate this message or any attachment, and please contact the sender by reply e-mail or at 888.760.5646 and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or misdelivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.

THIS EMAIL AND ITS ATTACHMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

[Author]

Replies