We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and
accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2023. All rights reserved.
It’s just an observation, but it certainly appears that foreclosure judges have been given orders to squash homeowners like a bug at the lower court level and if they can afford to appeal – maybe, just maybe, they might get some fair and balanced justice. The process so far has been highly unbalanced. Whether foreclosure judges are just not competent enough to understand the securitization, rehypothecation and securities scheme, or whether they’ve been told by higher-ups that if they don’t rule against homeowners all their pensions will be lost or the economy will crash – it’s just a bizarre and pathetic state of mind.
Deadly Clear 
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2508
___________________________
Bank of America, N.A.
Plaintiff – Appellee
v.
Gary R. Peterson; Sally L. Peterson
Defendants – Appellants
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and its successors and assigns;
Horizon Bank, National Association; Clear & Close Title Agency, Ltd.,
also all heirs and devisees of any of the above-named persons who
are deceased; and all other persons or entities claiming any right,
title, estate, lien or interest in real estate described in the Summons
and Complaint herein
Defendants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota – Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: March 4, 2015
Filed: April 15, 2015
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. In
Peterson v. Bank of America, N.A., 135 S. Ct. 1153 (2015), the Court granted a writ
of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment in Bank of America, N.A. v. Peterson, 746
F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2014), and remanded the case to us for reconsidering in light of its
decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015).
In Peterson, we relied upon our court’s decision in Keiran v. Home Capital,
Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2013), in holding that the Petersons’ claim for rescission
under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., was time-barred by 15
U.S.C. § 1635(f) because of their failure to file a lawsuit within three years of their
transaction with Bank of America. 746 F.3d at 360. The Supreme Court held in
Jesinoski that the Keiran court had erred in holding that a borrower’s failure to file
a suit for rescission within three years of the transaction’s consummation extinguishes
the right to rescind and bars relief. 135 S. Ct. at 792.
In light of the Court’s holding in Jesinoski, we vacate that portion of our
judgment in Bank of America N.A. v. Peterson that granted Bank of America
summary judgment on the Petersons’ claim for rescission, reinstate that portion of our
judgment that vacated the grant of summary judgment to Bank of America on the
Petersons’ counterclaim for statutory damages, and remand the case to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
______________________________