DOUGLAS J. DOTTER AND TERRY D. DOTTER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
TEXAS COMMERCE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court properly dismissed the counterclaim regarding rescission but erred in granting foreclosure without disproving the TILA affirmative defenses.
Appellants alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) as affirmative defenses to foreclosure. The trial court dismissed their counterclaim …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Recoupment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm that portion of the summary final judgment dismissing appellants’ counterclaim. The trial court’s order modifying the terms of rescission was proper under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1635(b). As stated in Williams v. Homestake Mortgage Co., 968 F. 2d 1137, 1141 (11th Cir.1992),
Congress, through its legislative history, has made it quite clear that “the courts, at any time during the rescission process, may impose equitable conditions to insure that the consumer meets his obligations after the creditor has performed his obligations as required by the act.”
(quoting S.Rep. No. 368, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 236, 265.)
We reverse the summary final judgment of foreclosure. As affirmative defenses by way of recoupment, appellants had alleged violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 1601 et seq. (West 1982 & Supp.1995). Nothing in the record demonstrates that appellee disproved the affirmative defenses, demonstrated their legal insufficiency, or liquidated the amount of statutory or actual damages that would have partially offset the debt owed to appellee. See, e.g., Johnson v. Claims Prevention & Management Services, Inc., 673 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., and GROSSMAN, MELVIN B., Associate Judge, eoncur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Homestake Mortg. Co., 968 F.2d 1137 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Summerlin v. State, 673 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Johnson v. Claims Preventon & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 673 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)