The term material disclosures means the information that must be provided to satisfy the requirements in Sec. 226.6 with regard to the method of determining the finance charge and the balance upon which a finance charge will be imposed, the annual percentage rate, the amount or method of determining the amount of any membership or participation fee that may be imposed as part of the plan, and the payment information described in Sec. 226.5b(d)(5)(i) and (ii) that is required under Sec. 226.6(e)(2).
I think most people, including myself for a long time, considered all the document copies to be the "material" disclosure. However, the above paragraph defines what the material disclosures are and everything listed is included on the typical RTC document that we see all the time.
The question then becomes if the signers actually received their copies of the material disclosures (i.e. RTC document), even if the signers signed a statement stating they in fact did receive them. That is something that the courts would have to sort out, imo. If the RTC document was not provided at the time of signing the receipt, who would be responsible for the damages, if any, would also be up to the courts. Ultimately, I would assume the lender to be responsible, but could conceivably seek restitution from the title/settlement company and thus down to the signing agent. Since it's not a notarial act, the SOS, Notary E&O and all that are discounted.
My point was that only the RTC delivery is what starts the rescission clock. All the other docs are collateral to Reg. Z.
This is certainly an interesting thread, and I don't know if anyone knows of any cases where the deliverance of the RTC was questioned in court and what the outcome was. |
