Gary Goff v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. , 518 F. App'x 670 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •               Case: 12-15859     Date Filed: 05/01/2013   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ___________________________
    No. 12-15859
    Non-Argument Calendar
    __________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 7:09-cv-00147-CLS
    GARY GOFF,
    On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    LASALLE BANK, N.A.,
    as Trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 2006-RM4,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For the Northern District of Alabama
    __________________________
    (May 1, 2013)
    Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 12-15859    Date Filed: 05/01/2013    Page: 2 of 3
    This case arises out of a real estate mortgage transaction entered into by Gary
    Goff and LaSalle Bank’s assignor on June 20, 2006. On January 23, 2009, Gary
    Goff sued LaSalle under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § §
    1601-67(e) for statutory damages and rescission. He claimed entitlement to such
    relief (1) because the closing statement did not disclose that he was required to make
    monthly payments to repay the loan, and (2) the right-to-rescind form was defective
    because the form did not state the date of the closing or the date of the expiration of
    his right to rescind the loan.
    LaSalle moved the District Court for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that
    Goff’s claims for damages were time-barred by TILA’s one-year statute of
    limitations for damages, and that Goff’s right to rescind expired after midnight of the
    third business day following the closing. The Magistrate Judge to whom the case
    was referred agreed that the claim for damages was time barred. The rescission
    issue, he said, turned on the question of whether the form failed to “clearly and
    conspicuously disclose” that Goff had the right to cancel the mortgage transaction
    within three business days after it occurred. The judge found that although the form
    was undated and the time in which he had the right to cancel was not clearly and
    conspicuously explained, the form clearly and conspicuously explained that the
    period in which he could exercise the right to rescind was three business days. The
    2
    Case: 12-15859     Date Filed: 05/01/2013   Page: 3 of 3
    Magistrate Judge therefore issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
    that the District Court grant LaSalle’s motion. The court followed the
    recommendation, dismissed Goff’s complaint, and gave LaSalle judgment. Goff
    now appeals. We affirm.
    The documents provided Goff at closing were plainly sufficient to inform him
    of his rights and obligations. The disclosure statement provided the number and
    amounts of all loan payments; hence, a reasonable consumer could determine the
    payment dates. And the Notice of Right to Cancel informed Goff that his right to
    cancel would expire “three business days from . . . the date you received this notice
    of right to cancel.” He received the Notice on the date of the closing.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-15859

Citation Numbers: 518 F. App'x 670

Filed Date: 5/1/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023