Posted by jba/fl on 6/17/07 4:31am
Msg #195561
PAW: re: RTC controversy
This was posted by LindaH on different thread yesterday. I also received this information previously, but have not located my original yet. Prob. deleted in one of my frenzies of 'clean up the mail box'. I still do not believe that notary would be the one accountable as TC should have complied w/in knowledge of law/regulation (what is diff? I don't know here, genuine question) and delivered the correct amount of copies to notary. I quote:
"you should have been advised what you were supposed to do - and by not delivering certain disclosures at the time of signing may have put the loan in violation of Regulation Z:
" (3) The consumer may exercise the right to rescind until midnight of the third business day following consummation, delivery of the notice required by paragraph (b) of this section, or delivery of all material disclosures,48 whichever occurs last. If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer's interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first. In the case of certain administrative proceedings, the rescission period shall be extended in accordance with section 125(f) of the Act.
48 The term ``material disclosures'' means the required disclosures of the annual percentage rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total payments, the payment schedule, and the disclosures and limitations referred to in Sec. 226.32 (c) and (d).
If it comes to down to it the borrowers could, feasibly, cancel the loan within the first 3 years instead of 3 days, all because someone didn't ensure the proper procedure was followed. MHO"
|
